Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

ALLIANCE & LEICESTER (GIROBANK) BILL

Lords amendments agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Primary School Buildings

Mr. Kynoch: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what was the capital spend on primary school building works in Scotland in 1992; and what was the figure in 1979, adjusted to 1992 prices.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): Information on capital expenditure on primary schools is not available separately.

Mr. Kynoch: I welcome the recent additional funding given to Grampian regional council, which has enabled it to prevent the closure of—and to rebuild—a rural primary school at Logie Coldstone in my constituency. The doubling of many primary school rolls in my constituency in recent years has placed a significant strain on buildings, which require rebuild and extension. Does my hon. Friend recognise the importance of primary schools, particularly to rural communities, in which they play a key part? Does he further recognise that Grampian regional council has paid insufficient attention to the growing population of Kincardine and Deeside? Will he urge it to put that matter right at the earliest opportunity?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend raises an important point. Rising pupil numbers is an issue which should be properly taken into account by the regional council as it comes under the council's jurisdiction. I am glad that progress has been made at Logie Coldstone primary school. My hon. Friend's constituency is suffering from the benefits associated with success, which brings in its wake problems which should be borne in mind by the regional council.

Mr. Foulkes: Is the Minister aware of the vigorous campaign in Ayr to keep Castlehill primary school open? The campaign has the support of the hon. Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) and me, so it must be right. If the campaign is successful, the temporary buildings will be inadequate. Will the Minister therefore given an assurance that

Strathclyde regional council will be allowed capital building consent to ensure that a new purpose-built school is provided for the pupils of Castlehill?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: In distributing allocations to the regions, account is taken, as far as possible, of the needs throughout Scotland. Councils can supplement their education building programme by the use of capital receipts from the disposal of assets, by the use of revenue expenditure on capital works and by transferring resources from other capital programmes. The issues raised by the hon. Gentleman, which also apply to many other parts of Scotland, will be borne in mind.

Rural Housing

Mr. Wallace: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next intends to meet the chairman of Scottish Homes to discuss rural housing.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend and I met the chairman of Scottish Homes in January to discuss a number of issues, including rural housing.

Mr. Wallace: It is now two and a half years since, with a great fanfare, Scottish Homes launched its rural housing strategy. Does the Minister regard the more than 7,000 homelessness applications in rural and remote areas of Scotland in the past complete year as a sign of a strategy that is working? While Scottish Homes may have made a laudable effort to concentrate on 10 demonstration projects, they will not be of much use unless the lessons learnt can be applied to other rural regions of Scotland. When will Scottish Homes do that, and will the Government provide it with the resources to do so?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I am glad to report that Scottish Homes' programme for rural areas of Scotland will include more than £55 million—an increase of almost 22 per cent. over the planned expenditure for last year. That represents about one fifth of the total development programme. Scottish Homes is giving priority to the issue of homelessness in a number of ways. It has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting-list applicants and the statutorily homeless, and is developing a series of initiatives which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome, including one for £2 million to be made available for three years for furniture grants to housing associations.

Mr. John Marshall: Will my hon. Friend confirm that Scottish Homes is a major beneficiary of the autumn statement? Will he also confirm that a local authority should sell as many council houses as possible because it can reinvest all the proceeds during the current financial year?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can confirm that Scottish Homes benefited considerably from the autumn statement when a £250 million debt was written off. Processing council house sales can be a substantial advantage and Scottish Homes does that to the benefit of its programmes.

Mrs. Fyfe: When, on 17 February, the Minister cut next year's housing support grants to three quarters of the current year's, was he aware of the shocking findings of the Scottish Homes survey into the condition of Scottish housing which was posted to Members of Parliament on 22 February? Was he aware on 17 February that some


94,000 dwellings failed to meet the tolerable standard, 32,000 of them in rural areas and 62,000 in urban areas? Did he also know that one fifth of Scotland's housing stock has damp, condensation or mould? Whether or not he knew then, he knows now. What does he intend to do about it?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes is facilitating repairs or replacements of 1,000 below tolerable standard houses per year through the housing associations and other suppliers in Scotland. Since 1979, more than £1 billion has been spent on improvement grants and local authorities can target their resources on below tolerable standard housing. The house condition survey made it clear that 2 per cent. of Scotland's houses are suffering from severe damp and condensation and we shall give top priority to eradicating that as soon as possible.

Constitutional Change

Mr. Salmond: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what speeches he has made in his ministerial capacity in 1993 on the subject of constitutional change in Scotland.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Ian Lang): None.

Mr. Salmond: It sounds as though the Secretary of State has been in constitutional purdah. Is there anything in the "taking stock" proposals which has not already been leaked to the press? If not, they seem to be mainly about increasing the Secretary of State's job description. Does the right hon. Gentleman not understand that there is a world of difference between increasing the democratic power of the Scottish nation and increasing the Secretary of State for Scotland's personal power of patronage? Will he undertake to put his proposals against independence in Europe and against devolution to the Scottish people in a constitutional referendum? If not, why not?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman will need to contain his impatience for a little longer; he will then discover precisely what our proposals include. But let me reassure him nothing in our proposals will do anything to undermine the integrity of the United Kingdom or Scotland's place in it.

Mr. Raymond S. Robertson: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the arrogance of the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) in this matter defies belief'? Will my right hon. Friend take this opportunity to remind the hon. Gentleman and the House that at every general election without exception the Scottish Conservative party has returned more Members of Parliament to the House than has the Scottish National party, and that with our history, our record of commitment and our geographic spread of representation it is the Conservative party which is Scotland's national party?

Mr. Lang: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. The Scottish National party talks readily about democracy, but I invite it to accept the verdict of the electorate who at the general election reduced its parliamentary representation by 40 per cent.

Mr. McAllion: Does the Secretary of State begin to comprehend that constitutional change is not an end in

itself but a means to an end? Does he not understand that 75 per cent. of Scottish voters want their own Parliament not for its own sake but because it frees them to make their own decisions about the future of Scottish water, Scottish local government and Scotland's railway system? Will he at least try to understand that whatever he announces next week about the stock-taking process, unless it frees Scottish democracy from the chains of the Westminster Parliament it will be decisively and deservedly rejected by the mass of the Scottish people?

Mr. Lang: I know that the hon. Gentleman is a member of that small band, Scotland United, and a great evangeliser for his cause. I am indebted to The Scotsman, which points out:
Scotland United has a new friend in the redoubtable form of none other than Fidel Castro, the president of Cuba.
On their return from a visit to Cuba, the doughty trio concluded:
We had two hours with him and he was really interested in what Scotland United was about.
They added:
Which is more than we've had from John Smith.

Mr. Dickens: Can my right hon. Friend explain the Scottish National party's continual obsession with breaking up the United Kingdom? Is it not a fact that a united Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland comprises one of the most influential and powerful nations in the world? Would not a fragmented Scotland become like a big county council? That is not what Scotland or Great Britain wants—we want the Union.

Mr. Lang: I absolutely endorse every word said by my hon. Friend. We on this side of the House are proud not only of what Scotland has derived from the Union but of the benefits that Scotland has brought to the Union.

Sir David Steel: Is the Secretary of State aware that any company which took as long to stock take as he has done would be in compulsory liquidation by now? Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the extent of his tinkering with our business arrangements over the next week or two will be no substitute for allowing the people of Scotland to determine their constitutional future?

Mr. Lang: The right hon. Gentleman talks about the time that we have taken. We have been thorough and careful in our deliberations. I note that Labour has not even begun to take stock.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Secretary of State recall that of the 72 Members of Parliament representing Scottish constituencies, three support independence, 11 support the Conservative party, and 49—a very clear majority—represent the Labour party and support a Parliament within the United Kingdom? Does the Secretary of State intend to consult the people of Scotland? If not, will he accept the Bill that we shall present in the coming weeks and submit these matters to a referendum so that the people of Scotland can decide their future?

Mr. Lang: No, we will not. I know that the hon. Gentleman is trying hard to cobble together some kind of unity among his divided Back Benchers, but to suggest that the secretary-general of the Scottish Trades Union Congress can somehow act as an honest broker over the future of the Scottish Constitutional Convention is to clutch at straws. I know that the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke) supports that approach,


but the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Wallace) described it as a non-starter and the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) described it as a red herring. I do not have much hope for the prospects of unity in those discussions.

Local Government

Mr. David Shaw: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his timetable and what are the proposals he expects to implement in connection with legislation concerning local government in Scotland.

Mr. Lang: My Department is currently analysing the responses to our consultation paper on local government reform, and the Government will take account of those responses when we make our decision on the new structure of unitary authorities in Scotland. We intend to publish a White Paper this summer setting out our proposals.

Mr. Shaw: My right hon. Friend will be aware of the strange and undemocratic practices of Monklands district council under Labour. Can he give an assurance that the legislative changes that he proposes will deal with them? In view of the Labour party's own admission that those practices are wrong, can my right hon. Friend further assure me that the £75 million of taxpayers' money spent annually by Monklands district council is properly spent? What does he think of the letter written to me the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), about the £200,000 of Monklands and taxpayers' money that has gone astray in the last few years?

Mr. Lang: I will want to consider the points that my hon. Friend put to me. Certainly the Labour party is in my hon. Friend's debt, because it was as a result of his interest in the matter that Labour established its own inquiry—the future of which we look forward to learning tomorrow. I hope that at that stage Members of Parliament who represent Monklands constituencies will finally take a close interest in the matter. After all, the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) said in a recent speech on standards in government:
Having the same party in power for fourteen years, and the abuses of that power which we now witness, have served to expose serious systemic weaknesses.

Unemployment

Mr. Ernie Ross: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chairs of the local enterprise companies in Scotland to discuss unemployment in their areas.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Allan Stewart): My right hon. Friend and I frequently meet chairmen of local enterprise companies to discuss a range of economic development and training issues.

Mr. Ross: How can LEC chairmen make plans for training, or deal with unemployment, when companies behave like Timex in Dundee, which sacked all its workers in the middle of a dispute? What have the Minister and the Secretary of State been able to do about the abuse of employment legislation that that company has visited on 343 workers since I raised the matter last Thursday?

Mr. Stewart: The hon. Gentleman has indeed raised the matter with my right hon. Friend and me. As I believe, he knows, the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service stands ready to assist if both parties to the dispute agree. That has not happened so far, but I know that the local enterprise company in his area is widely supported by the private sector and by local authorities.

Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend accept the thanks of all Ayrshire Members for the tremendous achievement of Scottish Enterprise in retaining Digital in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes), which is adjacent to mine, thus saving some 1,000 jobs? Scottish Enterprise deserves our compliments.

Mr. Stewart: I find myself in an unusual position: not only do I agree with my hon. Friend, which is fairly usual, but I endorse the public tribute paid by the hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) to Locate in Scotland, which worked extremely hard to ensure the continuation of that highly successful operation in Ayrshire. I am sure that it will go from success to success.

Ms. Rachel Squire: Is the Minister aware that Fife Enterprise is struggling to deal with the second highest unemployment rate in Scotland? In south and east Rosyth, for instance, it has already reached 12–1 and 12.5 per cent. respectively, and unless the submarine refitting order is awarded to Rosyth dockyard it will soon be 30 per cent. or even higher. When does the Minister intend to meet representatives of Fife Enterprise—and, indeed, Fife regional council—to discuss the creation of jobs for the Fife area? When does he feel confident that he will be able to celebrate the award of the refitting order to Rosyth, thus saving 18,000 jobs related directly and indirectly to the dockyard and ensuring that they have a future in the Fife area?

Mr. Stewart: The whole House will understand the hon. Lady's concern about what is an important matter for her constituency. As she knows, I am a Fifer myself. She will also know that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence is carefully considering the position of the dockyards. I assure her that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I are in constant touch with Fife Enterprise, and we have every confidence in that body. It is widely supported, by the private sector, the regional council and the district councils.

Mr. Fabricant: Is my hon. Friend aware that Opposition Members, as well as myself, attended a meeting of Nomura International, the well-known Japanese merchant bank? Is he aware that Nomura identified the social chapter as the single factor which would increase unemployment throughout the United Kingdom? Does my hon. Friend not find it amazing that Labour supports the social chapter?

Mr. Stewart: I note from the cheers of Labour Members how strongly they agree with the sensible point made by my hon. Friend. Having been in Japan for a time last September—

Mr. Eric Clarke: Not in Scotland?

Mr. Stewart: Let me tell the hon. Member for Midlothian (Mr. Clarke) that Japanese companies in Lothian provide an enormous number of jobs and are constantly expanding and investing. I hoped that Opposition Members would join me in welcoming that.

Mrs. Ray Michie: Has the Minister had an opportunity to meet the chairman of Argyll and the Islands local enterprise company to discuss the effect on unemployment in Argyll and Bute of the announcement that it was to be excluded from objective 1 status?

Mrs. Ewing: And Moray.

Mrs. Michie: And the effect on Moray, Arran and various other places. What has happened? Why has there been such confusion? Whose fault was it? Can the Minister assure us that Argyll and Bute will be included in objective 1 status when the matter goes before the Council of Ministers?

Mr. Stewart: I appreciate the hon. Lady's point. As I think she will know, the territorial definitions are made by the European Commission itself. She will also know that the Government have consistently made the case for the whole highlands and islands enterprise area.

Mr. Harris: Reverting to the question asked by the hon. Member for Dunfermline, West (Ms. Squire), does my hon. Friend accept that those of us who have the honour and privilege to represent the south-west of England look at the question of the dockyards from a very different point of view and that we maintain firmly that, on any objective assessment, the submarine refitting order should go to Devonport?

Mr. Stewart: I have no doubt that my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Defence will read my hon. Friend's comments.

Mr. Connarty: Returning to the question of the enterprise boards in Scotland, has the Minister had an opportunity to discuss with Forth Valley Enterprise and other enterprise schemes around Grangemouth port the deep concern that they feel about the dirty tricks which appear to have been played against the Forth ports, including Grangemouth, by Scottish Enterprise? Is he aware that the report compiled by PEIDA did not include a substantial number of facilities at the ports? It would appear that Locate in Scotland and Scottish Enterprise are attempting to sell the idea of a port at Rosyth, which might be welcome, by doing down and hiding from people facilities at the port of Grangemouth and elsewhere which have already received substantial investment. I have written to the Secretary of State for Scotland about this. Has the issue been raised with him by the enterprise board chairman?

Mr. Stewart: I am aware of the hon. Gentleman's letter to my right hon. Friend. Scottish Enterprise has been involved in a study of a possible port development at Rosyth; I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is apparently opposed to Scottish Enterprise considering developments which might involve net additional jobs for Scotland.

Local Services

Mr. McMaster: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he next plans to meet representatives of COSLA to discuss the provision of local services.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend met the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities on 18 January. Further meetings, as part of the normal consultation on local government finance matters, will be held later this year.

Mr. McMaster: Is the Minister aware that while he spends his time trying to save Tory Eastwood district council from the effects of his own reforms, the people of Scotland spend their time worrying about the bread and butter issues that they face daily, such as damp, decaying housing, the upsurge in violent crime, the lack of proper community policing, the threat of water privatisation and the Government's failure to prepare properly for the community care of our elderly and disabled people? As they are all vital local services which are in the hands of local government, why does the Minister waste so much time trying to dismantle and destroy local government instead of strengthening and supporting it?

Mr. Stewart: Aggregate 'external finance for local government in Scotland for the forthcoming year is £1,013 per head, compared with £690 per head in England and £812 per head in Wales. That is not destruction; that is a massive investment by the British taxpayer in local authority expenditure in Scotland, which is far higher than anywhere else in the country.
The hon. Gentleman asked some specific questions. He will know that Scottish Homes is taking action in Foxbar. With regard to his concern about the policing of his constituency, why does not he take up with Labour Strathclyde regional council the fact that consistently, over a long period, it has been the only police authority in Scotland to keep its police manpower below the Scottish Office authorised level?

Mr. Bill Walker: When my hon. Friend meets representatives of COSLA will he draw attention to the article in the Glasgow Herald which said that the Monklands mafia were to be taken to an industrial tribunal by those great friends of the Conservative party, the Transport and General Workers Union? Is not it about time that something was done about what is going on in that district council?

Mr. Stewart: I know my hon. Friend's concern about those matters. His concern is shared by the Labour party —with the notable exception of the right hon. and learned Member for Monklands, East (Mr. Smith) and the hon. Member for Monklands, West (Mr. Clarke). We all hope that the inquiry will come to sensible conclusions. We have received many letters of complaint about what is going on in Monklands. I hope for the support of Opposition Members in wishing the Transport and General Workers Union well in its complaint to the industrial tribunal.

Mr. Wray: I notice that the Minister carefully did not refer to water privatisation when he answered the question from my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South (Mr. McMaster). The Scottish Minister with responsibility for agriculture and environment was more forthcoming when he replied to a letter from my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Ross). He suggested that the Government intend there to be meter options in April


1993, but the Minister has not mentioned that. May I give him a message from the people of Scotland? We do not want meters; we do not want water privatisation. If the Government franchise or privatise water the 49 Scottish Members of Parliament intend to take it back into public ownership.

Mr. Stewart: I always listen to what the hon. Gentleman says, because he lives in a part of my constituency in which I cannot afford to live. I assure him that I completely support what my hon. Friend said in his letter. My hon. Friend will be answering a question on the subject shortly.

Mr. Tom Clarke: Does the Minister recall that he failed to answer the serious question asked by my hon. Friend the Member for Paisley, South about community care? Does he agree that the concerns are widely shared throughout Scotland—concerns about elderly people and the care gap in residential and nursing homes, concerns about people leaving long-stay psychiatric hospitals and going into the community, and concerns about the multiply handicapped? Local authorities must address those issues, because of the changes that will happen on I April. In view of the absence of proper funding, how do the Government intend to deal with those matters—or do they intend to leave elderly, disabled and handicapped people and their carers with the impression that the Government simply have no strategy whatever and have even ignored the report from Sir Roy Griffiths, who warned them that if they did not act, chaos would prevail in community care?

Mr. Stewart: The House expected the hon. Gentleman to defend Monklands district council and its employment policies and religious discrimination. Does the hon. Gentleman not defend every action of Monklands district council? 1 see that he sits silent and I am not surprised. In answer to his specific question, the Government have increased the resources for community care by more than the Department of Social Security would have spent in Scotland. The commitment to community care is absolutely clear and has been backed by massive extra resources.

Legal Aid

Mr. Ingram: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people received legal aid in each of the last five years.

Mr. Lang: In 1987–88, there were 305,148 grants of legal aid and advice and assistance. This rose to 366,580 in 1991–92—an increase of just over 20 per cent. in five years. I will, with permission, Madam Speaker, arrange for the detailed numbers for the last five years to be printed in the Official Report and sent to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that information. Can he say why the Government, having gone some of the way towards reinstating the eligibility criteria for legal advice and assistance, are not prepared to go the whole way and raise the £44 threshold for eligibility for free civil legal aid? Why are the Government determined to deny easy access to justice for people on low incomes such as the disabled, pensioners and others with low basic incomes? Do not they care about justice in Scotland?

Mr. Lang: Indeed we do, and those on income support levels will continue to receive free civil legal aid and advice and assistance. As the hon. Gentleman acknowledges, in the light of consultation, the Government have decided to retain the contributory band in the case of advice and assistance. However, the hon. Gentleman should not seek to imply—I do not think that he meant to do so—that we are somehow cutting legal aid in Scotland. Expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase between now and 1995–96.

Mrs. Ewing: Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that statistics provided by his own Government actually deny the figures that he has just given and that there has been very little increase in gross civil legal aid payments? The major jump has been in administrative costs. Is not the reality that changes in civil legal aid in Scotland are being tacked on to the changes in the English legal system, where there have been substantial increases? When shall we see the regulations which he is prepared to debate?

Mr. Lang: The answer to the hon. Lady's last question is shortly. In regard to comparisons with England, we would expect such issues to proceed broadly in line, taking account of the different circumstances north and south of the border. Let me assure the hon. Lady that, over the next two years, we expect that more people than ever before will receive legal aid and advice and assistance.

Mr. Menzies Campbell: Does the Secretary of State accept that it is a mark of a civilised society that all persons, irrespective of means, may have access to the legal system? It is perfectly clear from the proposals that he is about to bring forward that a substantial group of people who previously had access to the system through legal aid are to be denied that. Why is the Scottish Office following like a lapdog the experience in England? If the right hon. Gentleman were as independent as he claims to be, he would tell the Lord Advocate that we do not need to do in Scotland what the Lord Chancellor feels compelled to do in England and Wales.

Mr. Lang: As the hon. and learned Gentleman knows, we have responsibilities north of the border, just as my right hon. and hon. Friends do south of the border, for ensuring that public resources are sensibly spent with proper care and attention to the interests of the taxpayers. However, as I have said already, we expect that more than ever before, not fewer, will be able to receive legal aid and advice and assistance over the next couple of years—something like half the households in the country.

Following is the information:



Number


1987–88
304,148


1988–89
288,904


1989–90
298,824


1990–91
328,688


1991–92
366,580

Access to Justice

Mr. Worthington: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on his Department's policy on equality of access to justice.

Mr. Lang: The Government are fully committed to ensuring that all citizens have, so far as possible, ready access to a high standard of justice.

Mr. Worthington: Why have not the Government published the figures on which their claims for an increase in civil legal aid are based? The figures for 1987–1992 show that there is a tiny increase and the claim for changes in the regulations is based on the figures for this year. Will the right hon. Gentleman publish those figures when he releases them to my hon. Friend the Member for East Kilbride (Mr. Ingram)? Why are we having a cut when the citizens advice bureaux report that in significant areas of Scotland there is no civil legal aid because lawyers cannot afford to do it?

Mr. Lang: If the hon. Gentleman cares to table some specific questions, I will ensure that they are answered, giving such figures as are available. As I have said, expenditure on legal aid has doubled in the past six years from £49 million in 1987–88 to an estimated £100 million in the current year. That is a substantial increase and we are budgeting for a 40 per cent. increase by 1995–96.

Mr. Chisholm: Is the Minister aware that, over the past 20 years, many thousands of women have used legal aid to raise actions aimed at protecting themselves and their children from violence? Will the Government therefore support the campaign against domestic violence launched by Edinburgh district council's women's committee and the Edinburgh Evening News by ensuring that the cruel legal aid proposals are scrapped and by giving a more generous donation to Scottish Women's Aid? Its grant is not keeping up with its funding requirements and is falling behind all the time as a proportion of its total expenditure.

Mr. Lang: Our proposals will have no effect on the eligibility of that category.

Homelessness

Sir Russell Johnston: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what measures he is taking to alleviate homelessness in Scotland.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Local authorities have the statutory responsibility for dealing with homelessness. Their capital allocations this year total over £456 million and the Government have consistently emphasised the need to give due priority to homelessness. We have backed this up with extra capital allocations of over £22 million earmarked for homelessness projects over the period 1991 to 1993.

Sir Russell Johnston: These are empty words when one considers the fact that there were 7,000 applications last year in rural Scotland under the homelessness legislation. Over the past eight years, the total figure has increased by 180 per cent., which is a shame on the Government. Do not the Government recognise that the simple way in which to deal with the problem is not to talk about more hostels and more bed-and-breakfast accommodation, but

to give the local authorities money to build houses for reasonable rent? There is no other way in which to deal with the problem effectively.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I can tell the hon. Gentleman that this afternoon we are making a £2.5 million supplementary allocation. Inverness district council will benefit by £100,000 owing to a shortfall of receipts. The hon. Gentleman must bear in mind the fact that over the past 10 years £10 million has been allocated through urban aid for homelessness projects. More than 1,200 housing association units have been grant aided over the past three years and some 450 homeless persons and families were provided with permanent accommodation by housing associations in 1991–92. Local authorities are expected to give priority to homelessness within their mainstream allocation.

Mr. Sykes: The hon. Member for Inverness, Nairn and Lochaber (Sir R. Johnston) used the phrase "empty words". Will my hon. Friend comment on the vast number of empty council houses in Labour-controlled councils throughout Scotland?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. Friend makes a valid point. We want to bring empty houses back into use wherever they exist. Several study groups are looking into the matter and are considering not only local authority housing, but housing in the charge of Government Departments. We will take every possible measure to ensure that empty property is brought back into use.

Mr. Graham: Is the Minister aware that the extra money that was allocated to the homeless in Renfrew district will give us three houses? Is he aware that Scottish Homes has thousands of houses in Renfrew district and in Scotland generally? It is not playing a meaningful role in helping the district council to alleviate homelessness because it continues to sell houses that should be allocated to people who live in the local area.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Scottish Homes has taken action with local authorities on nomination agreements, which many local authorities have, and it has said that 7,000 units will be made available for waiting list applicants. I shall check on the position in Renfrew district. However, it has a good record overall and the many strategic agreements formed with local authorities take that factor into account.

Bank Charges

Mr. Eric Clarke: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what meetings he has held with banks in Scotland about bank charges and the effect of changes in the charges on the viability of Scottish businesses, jobs and individuals with low fixed incomes.

Mr. Stewart: My right hon. Friend and I have frequent contacts with the Scottish banks which enable matters of this kind to be discussed as necessary. The levels of charges that the banks apply for particular services are, however, a matter for their commercial judgment.

Mr. Clarke: Is the Minister aware that thousands of people are suffering from high bank charges? I give him one example, that of Mrs. Margaret Reid who lives at Easthouses in my constituency. A miner's widow, she is being charged £3 by the Royal Bank of Scotland for every


transaction, for which she must pay out of her small pension. When she told the bank that she wanted to withdraw her account, she was told that she would be charged £10 to do that. Does he believe that people on such low incomes should be fleeced by the greedy banks?

Mr. Stewart: I cannot comment on the case which the hon. Gentleman raises. I am surprised that, as the lady's constituency hon. Member, he has not taken the opportunity to raise the matter with the Royal Bank. In general terms, I refer him to a recent survey by the Forum of Private Business, which concluded:
In almost every aspect, the Scottish banks were perceived in a superior light to the English banks, including bank charges, interest rates, collateral, indices of quality and banking relationships.
I should have thought that, in the light of that, hon. Members might praise the Scottish financial community.

Knives

Mr. David Marshall: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received regarding Operation Blade carried out by Strathclyde police; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Gallie: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will introduce proposals to amend the law relating to sentences available to sheriffs for those convicted of carrying knives or other such instruments.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no representations concerning Operation Blade, but we strongly welcome the steps that have been taken by Strathclyde police to deal with the serious and growing problem of the carrying of knives. Operation Blade is an innovative strategy by the force and the first of its kind in Scotland. More than 4,500 weapons have already been surrendered. The Government will be supporting the Bill introduced yesterday by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr (Mr. Gallie) to strengthen the law on the carrying of knives in public.

Mr. Marshall: Will the Minister confirm that I have been raising with him the issue of crimes of violence For the past five years? Will he further confirm that last year I asked him to declare an amnesty and that he refused, on the basis that to do so, so soon after 1988, would debase its value? Is not it a fact that as Operation Blade has resulted in nearly 5,000 weapons being removed from the streets of Strathclyde, it is the Government who are debased? Why has it taken campaigns by the Glasgow Evening Times and the Scottish Daily Record to get the Government to act?
Is the Minister aware that horrific weapons of war are widely available in shops in our towns and cities? Will he now introduce legislation to ban the importation and sale of weapons such as the one I hold in my hand—[Interruption.]

Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed further, I must remind the hon. Gentleman that he is not allowed to bring such an implement into the Chamber, or indeed into the House.

Mr. Marshall: I apologise, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: The hon. Member has been here long enough to be aware of such matters. [Interruption.] I am sure that, at my request, he will remove it from the Chamber. I should be most grateful if he would.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Before we proceed, I am sure that the hon. Member will agree to do as I say.

Mr. Marshall: Yes, Madam Speaker. I will do that immediately.

Madam Speaker: Will he do it quickly, so that he can then hear the Minister's reply to his supplementary question?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I welcome the fact that Opposition Members are coming round to the Government's way of thinking on the need for a really strong law and order policy in this country. Only a short time ago they opposed the police having powers of search. The importance of the Bill is that it alters the onus of proof, which will make prosecutions easier. The existing provisions under the Prevention of Crime Act 1953 relate to the carrying of weapons and require the Crown to prove intent to injure. Under the Bill, it will not be necessary to prove that intent and that will take the policy much further forward. If the hon. Gentleman feels passionately about the issue, however, will he please make representations to Strathclyde regional council's Labour group and ask it to strengthen the police force, which is some 200 under strength at present?

Mr. Gallie: Will my hon. Friend accept my thanks for the time given by Scottish Office officials in preparing the Bill that will make the carrying of knives in public an offence? Will he welcome the support given by Opposition Members and does he agree that this is only one small step to redress an unacceptable position?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Yes, I can confirm that there is no stronger supporter of law and order in the House than my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr. I have no doubt that, with a general consensus of support for tightening the measures in relation to knives, we will strengthen law and order.
In 1992 there were 201 attempted murders in Strathclyde in which knives were used, compared with 126 the year before. The number of knife assaults has increased considerably. We have to take further measures and my hon. Friend's Bill will assist in that process.

Mr. McFall: In January we had the planted question; now we have the planted Bill. Despite enormous public concern in Scotland at the ever-increasing incidence of violence involving knives, the Minister of State only last week stated that the Government were unwilling to make parliamentary time available to fulfil the Conservative party's election manifesto commitment on knives. Eight days after that statement and one day after I presented my Bill to ban the carrying of knives, the hon. Member for Ayr was furnished by the Government with a Bill to do just that.
We accept, however, that the main issue is the carrying of knives in public places. Given the serious nature of the issue to the Scottish people, will the Minister agree to meet


me and a small number of my hon. Friends to discuss aspects of the Bill, thereby ensuring the swiftest progress in its passage through Parliament?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: The answer to the hon. Gentleman's question is yes, of course I will meet him. May I add that maximum penalties are now available. For example, if someone were to use a knife, he could be sentenced to life imprisonment on indictment. The Bill ensures that those who carry knives where no intent is proved can be proceeded against. That strengthens the powers of the police and also makes it easier to prosecute. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman supports the measure.

Sir Nicholas Fairbairn: Before my hon. Friend jumps on the bandwagon of Mr. Boutros Boutros's Bill, may I remind the House what the law is? It is more than adequate. Under section 1 of the Prevention of Crime Act 1953, it is an offence punishable by two years' imprisonment—more than is sought in the Bill—to carry any offensive weapon in any public or private place, the proof of the carrier's intention, being neutral, being upon him. Furthermore, the Restriction of Offensive Weapons Act 1961 provides for the prevention of sale of offensive weapons. If the Government do not know what the law is, it is time that they did.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My hon. and learned Friend is a brilliant man, but he is not always right. The Bill introduced by my hon. Friend the Member for Ayr changes the burden of proof by requiring the accused to demonstrate lawful authority or reasonable excuse for carrying the implement. That undoubtedly takes us further forward.

Economy and Employment

Dr. Godman: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss the economy and employment.

Mr. Lang: I have frequent meetings with the chairman and chief executive of Scottish Enterprise to discuss a range of economic, employment and training issues in Scotland.

Dr. Godman: Leaving aside for the moment the intense local speculation concerning Mimtec and Faulds Farm, Gourock, may I remind the Secretary of State that the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Eastwood (Mr. Stewart), told me just 13 days ago that more than 48,000 people in Strathclyde, 2,000 of whom live in Inverclyde, have been unemployed for more than 12 months? Will the Secretary of State ensure that Scottish Enterprise involves itself in the sale of Scott Lithgow so that more employment may be provided in the area? Does he agree that if Scott Lithgow were brought into the enterprise zone it would be very attractive to a potential inward investor in shipbuilding or shiprepairing?

Mr. Lang: The hon. Gentleman must know that I cannot hold out any hope that it will be possible to change the boundaries of the enterprise zone. However, the very existence of the enterprise zone, together with the other benefits, schemes and initiatives that the Government and Scottish Enterprise bring to Inverclyde and other parts of Scotland, has helped to sustain the area's economy quite effectively during the period of recession. The hon.

Gentleman mentioned unemployment. He should not overlook the brighter signs. Unemployment in his constituency, far from rising in the past year, has fallen. Although the level is still too high, it is more than 4,000 lower than it was six years ago.

Mr. Ian Bruce: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, under the rules governing assisted area status and enterprise zones and the European Commission's rules, only 15 per cent. of the population of the United Kingdom may have assisted area status? In view of the great success of Scottish Enterprise in bringing jobs to Scotland, is not it now time for the assisted area status of some Scottish areas to be given up to other parts of the United Kingdom? It is clear that those parts of Scotland no longer need assistance.

Mr. Lang: As my hon. Friend knows, the assisted areas map is drawn on an even-handed basis across the United Kingdom, taking account of objective criteria that have been agreed. In this respect, Scotland is no different from Northern Ireland, Wales or England. However, the assisted areas map is under review. The issue is being carefully considered to ensure that we get the right structure and the right map for the future.

Mr. Donohoe: What progress has the Secretary of State made in pursuing companies that came to Irvine, were given massive grants and have now left without repaying any money to Scottish Enterprise? What progress has been made towards recovering this money?

Mr. Lang: Regional assistance is carefully controlled. Resources have to be repaid if the investment to which they relate is not undertaken within a certain time limit. That happens on rare occasions. If the hon. Gentleman knows of any cases in his constituency, I shall certainly follow them up and give him a detailed and specific reply.

Scottish Charities(Eastern Europe)

Mr. Thurnham: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe; and if he will make a statement.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: My right hon. Friend has received no specific representations and while the Scottish Office has no responsibility for the work of Scottish charities in eastern Europe, he associates himself with the widespread appreciation of their efforts.

Mr. Thurnham: Will my hon. Friend congratulate Scottish European Aid—formerly Romania Project UK —on the excellence of its work at lonaseni orphanage and Podriga hospital? Will he support Scottish European Aid's appeal for a mobile medical camp for Bosnia's stricken refugees?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I will consider my hon. Friend's request for assistance for the Edinburgh headquarters and I will write to him as soon as possible with regard to ways forward. On the question of training schemes, we should need detailed information, but we will consider the situation sympathetically. I pay tribute to my hon. Friend for his work, not only in founding the all-party campaign for inter-country adoption but for the orphanage in Ionaseni, Romania, and the psychiatric hospital at Podriga. I understand that rehabilitation of


buildings at Tuzla, too, is proceeding. We warmly welcome the work of Scottish European Aid and wish it every success.

Stobhill Hospital

Mr. Michael J. Martin: To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has yet received the health board's recommendations regarding the future of Stobhill hospital.

Mr. Stewart: The Greater Glasgow health board has yet to conclude its review of acute and maternity services. Stobhill hospital features as part of that review. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks forward to receiving the health board's recommendations in due course.

Mr. Martin: Will the Minister tell the health board and its new chairman that Stobhill is an excellent facility at the north end of the city? It serves not only my constituency but many other constituencies in Glagow—and, indeed, Strathkelvin and further afield as far as Kilsyth and Torrance. To lose the facility will mean a lot of harm to the health of many thousands of people. I hope that the Minister will take on board the fact that we have a first-class team in Stobhill from the doctors down to the domestics. I hope that the hospital has a good future.

Mr. Stewart: I appreciate what the hon. Gentleman says. The review to which I referred is about putting patients first and providing patients with important services. I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that, once the recommendations of the board are with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or the Minister of State, they will be happy to meet him to discuss the matter in detail.

Points of Order

Mr. David Blunkett: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am seeking your ruling on the procedure used by Health Ministers yesterday to announce a record increase in prescription charges without an oral statement on which they could be questioned. The written details purported to be "pursuant to" a written answer to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett) on 16 February, although the original question did not mention prescription charge rates or prescription charge increases, and it was answered in full.
That practice was condemned by the Select Committee on Procedure in its third report, Session 1990–91, paragraph 129, in which it said:
It is hard to see how a matter can be of such urgency that an announcement must be made without prior notice on a particular day, and yet not be of sufficient importance to justify an oral statement to the House.
Would you agree, Madam Speaker, that such practice is
inherently undesirable and an abuse of the procedures of this House"?

Mr. David Winnick: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker, I am a Member of the Procedure Committee, and I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett) has taken the opportunity to emphasise from the Front Bench the points which the Committee made.
You, like your predecessors, have rightly deprecated the custom whereby journalists—indeed, the world at large—are given information by the Government before the House. This is an important announcement, which undoubtedly penalises the sick in our society. It is controversial. What possible justification can there be to give the announcement to the Lobby and the rest of the country and not make an oral statement in the House on which the Secretary of State for Health can be questioned while you are presiding?
If it is too late now, would you make it clear that such statements should be made to the House in future? We should be given the first opportunity; otherwise, the remarks which you and your predecessors made are simply made a mockery of by Ministers—

Several hon. Members: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. I can deal with the point of order.
The written answer given yesterday, which is in columns 95 and 96 of Hansard, is concerned almost entirely with the proposed level of prescription charges for the year 1993–94, and is described as "pursuant to" an answer of 15 February to the hon. Member for Erith and Crayford (Mr. Evennett), which is at column 162.
I have noted that the Select Committee on Procedure, in its third report of Session 1990–91, stated its belief that
the use by Ministers of 'pursuant' answers is inherently undesirable".
The report goes on to say:
The offence is compounded when…an answer is given which claims to be 'pursuant' to an earlier reply but which in fact has only the most tenuous link with it.
As we well know, the House has not yet had the opportunity to debate the Procedure Committee's recommendations on how the practice should be dealt with. But I wish to make it clear that I deprecate the use

of the "pursuant" device by Ministers to make written statements such as this without giving proper notice to the House. I hope that that clears up the points of order, and that we can now get on with our business.
Mrs. Ewing, on a separate point of order.

Mrs. Margaret Ewing: On a separate point of order arising out of Scottish questions, Madam Speaker. You will know that considerable interest in civil legal aid was expressed during questions. On at least two occasions, the Secretary of State for Scotland said that he believed that the cost of civil legal aid in Scotland had doubled in the past five years. That is in direct contradiction of written answers which were provided to me on 12 February.
It is important that such inaccuracies should not be written into our records. Is there something that you can do to ensure that, within the Scottish Office, answers communicated by junior Ministers are relayed to the Secretary of State so that information is accurately recorded in all our records?

Madam Speaker: I am sure that the hon. Lady is wily enough and has sufficient imagination to put her point across. It is a matter of policy, not one for me.

Mr. Nigel Griffiths: Further to the point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. There can be no further points of order on that matter. I have dealt with it.

Mr. Griffiths: On a different point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Is it a separate point of order? Mr. Griffiths: Yes.

Madam Speaker: I will hear it, provided that it is a separate point of order.

Mr. Griffiths: On the procedures of the House, I fully accept your ruling on the previous point of order—

Madam Speaker: Order. I have dealt with that. There can be no further point of order on that matter. I have dealt with it adequately. We must now move on.

Mr. Griffiths: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Is the hon. Gentleman challenging that ruling? He told me that it was a separate point of order before he got to his feet. I accepted his word as an hon. Gentleman. Is it a separate point of order now?

Mr. Griffiths: The Procedure Committee two years ago made a recommendation which the House has not yet had chance to debate. Is it not an indictment of the Government's handling of business that it takes two years for such matters to come before the House? Is that not a way for Ministers to gag the House of Commons on embarrassing statements such as the one on prescription charges?

Madam Speaker: I have no doubt that what I said earlier will have been noted. Now perhaps we can—

Dr. Norman A. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Order. It seems that Members in the last moment or two have ideas in their mind which they


can raise as a point of order. Some of them are bogus points of order. I have no intention of letting the House be delayed by bogus points of order. I shall now proceed.

Dr. Godman: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.

Madam Speaker: Well, I must hear a bit of it to start with.

Dr. Godman: I am grateful to you, Madam Speaker. May I remind you that, on 26 January, I raised with you in a point of order the advisability of documents which are the basis of ministerial statements being placed in the Vote Office for Members some 30 minutes before the statement is due to be made? You advised me to raise it with the Leader of the House, which I did on 27 January. I have heard no more. Has the Leader of the House been in touch with you on this legitimate point of order?

Madam Speaker: It is within my recollection, but it has nothing to do with me.

Mr. Philip Oppenheim: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be in order for the Opposition to use an Opposition day debate to discuss prescription charges so that Conservative Members can point out that a Labour Government first proposed prescription charges—

Madam Speaker: Order. We must get on with the 10-minute rule motion.

Coal Industry (Abolition of Statutory Manpower Limits)

Mrs. Elizabeth Peacock: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946; and for connected purposes.
The present furore in the coal industry and in the country, following British Coal's and the Government's October announcement of their intention to close 31 pits, has brought into focus many aspects of the coal and energy market, which are the subject of on-going reports and debate.
The future of those 31 pits remains in the balance, with 21 working and 10 closed but subject to a review procedure. My view of the way in which the announcement was made in October is well known, and I do not intend to go over that ground again today. All I shall say is that I look to my right hon. Friend the President of the Board of Trade to produce a balanced energy programme which will allow a substantial number of those pits to remain open under British Coal management.
I continue to press that view, on the basis that we must save not only the jobs of the majority of the 30,000 miners involved, but also the livelihoods of the estimated 50,000 additional people employed in associated industries or small local businesses, and those involved in this country's wider manufacturing base.
For some mines, there is an alternative to remaining under British Coal management: they could be leased or sold for private licensed operation. I have positive information that a consortium could be interested in operating Markham Main colliery in Yorkshire, and that the well-known mining company, Ryan, would be interested in operating Betws colliery in Wales; and I am sure that there could well be others.
The chairman of British Coal has publicly said that he would not be opposed to pits within the 10 under review being transferred to licensed status and operated privately. I and others intend to keep him to that offer, to maximise the number of mining jobs retained and to enable the removal of the so-called easily mined coal from these pits. That is where the problem arises—hence the need for my Bill.
Present legislation limits to 150 the number of workers employed underground in licensed mines at any one time. For many mines to operate efficiently and safely—I stress the word safely—that number is inadequate. Without becoming involved in a discussion about the number of men needed to run a privately operated mine compared with the existing number, a limit of 150 underground workers at any time in a licensed mine is too restrictive.
There is a stronger case than ever for removing the restriction. If it remains in place, the pits that British Coal plans to close will have no future, because virtually all of them employ many more miners than the licensing limit. Some of the pits that British Coal may not want to work remain viable, with good short-term coal reserves and good industrial relations. They could operate profitably. I cite as an example Grimethorpe colliery in South Yorkshire, which the international mining consultants Boyd have recently shown to be viable.
If the restriction is removed, there is a chance that at least some of the pits, and therefore some of the miners, could find a future in the private sector. I am sure that the House is well aware that the Coal Act 1938 and the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946 provide the basic legal framework for the coal industry. The 1938 Act removed the freehold ownership of coal from the private sector and vested it in the Coal Commission. The 1946 Act created the National Coal Board, which acquired all the interests of the Coal Commission and was given the exclusive duty of working and searching for coal.
Section 36(2) of the 1946 Act, however, empowered the NCB to license coal mining or, as an ancillary, the mining of other materials. Until 1990, the size of licensed deep mines was severely curtailed by the statutory manpower limit of 30 men employed to work underground. The Government went some way towards liberalising the regime for the licensed sector by section 4 of the Coal Industry Act 1990, which increased the limit to 150 men.
The scope of my Bill is totally to remove the restriction, by amending section 36(2)(a) of the Coal Industry Nationalisation Act 1946. I hope that the House will support me in my endeavour. I am convinced that there is no shortage of individuals and companies interested in creating a future for some of the pits. There is certainly no shortage of energy and commitment among the people at the pits, who believe that there is potential there. Some of them may prove to be over-optimistic.
There should be no pretence that the amending legislation would save as many jobs as some of us would like. However, the new operators would want to run the pits as efficiently as possible—as I am sure British Coal do —which might mean fewer jobs. There should be no illusions that the measure would be a cure-all for the coal industry. At least the operators would provide the opportunity—a second chance—for the operations to succeed and for some jobs to be saved. It would be wrong to allow an anomalous restriction to prevent that second chance.
On behalf of miners, their families and the wider energy needs of the country I ask the House for leave to bring in the amendment to the outdated and unnecessary legislation.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I wish to oppose.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: I was first.
I wish to oppose the Bill, as I want to place on record the fact that the Opposition do not want to go back to the era of privatisation in the coal mines. The hon. Member for Batley and Spen (Mrs. Peacock) wants to increase the numbers that are allowed to work in a private mine. Just before the last election, legislation was passed which increased the numbers from 30 to 150, and every Labour Member voted against that proposal. I hope that they will do the same again today. If we as a Labour party were against increasing the number of people working in a pit from 30 to 150 it should follow that we are against any further increase.
The reason that we are against the privatisation of mines is fairly simple. The Mines and Quarries Acts, which form the backbone of the legislation on the supervision

and extraction of coal, have been etched in blood—miners' blood. Over the years—in fact, decades—several disasters have taken place. Following each disaster, well-meaning people have told the House of Commons that we needed another regulation to ensure that such a disaster never happened again.
That is how many of the Mines and Quarries Acts have been built up over the years. They have grown up as a result of 80 miners losing their lives in one place and another 200 losing their lives somewhere else. The Opposition are not prepared to cast away provisions that exist to ensure the limited safety of miners when they are engaged underground and at the pit top.
None of us would claim for one minute that it is totally safe in a pit—of course it is not. But we must preserve the Mines and Quarries Acts, and the present health and safety provisions. We all know that the main reason for the coal industry being nationalised was that, at the end of, and during, the war, privatisation was seen to be failing the nation, as it would again.
We cannot provide the necessary energy through coal on the basis of private enterprise. During the run-up to the second world war and beyond, the Government had to intervene. Many of the Tories who were then involved were private coal owners, and they collaborated over the idea of public ownership.
The Opposition would be the first to admit that public ownership has not been the bees' knees in the mining industry. But why? Not because of the philosophy of public ownership, but because of the Tory people running it. There is one running it now who is called Neil Clarke. His salary increased from £98,000 to more than £200,000 when he took the job. Why did this rotten Government increase his salary? Because they knew that he would be a patsy for privatisation and running down the pits.
It is interesting that both the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and Neil Clarke went on television on 13 October and said the same things. They talked about having a tiny industry. Why, one might ask, would British Coal want a small coal mining industry? Simple—because Neil Clarke and his acolytes at Hobart house wanted to run the privatised industry, and they did not want competition. They did not want 30, 40 or 50 pits; they wanted a small number of the most productive pits so that they could make a big fat profit running the industry. That is why we are opposed to this Bill.
If the hon. Lady or any other Tory Members who have spouted about supporting the miners in the past want to support the Opposition—they have been good talkers, but they have been no good in the ring, with the exception of the hon. Lady and, I think, two others on the day in question—to save the 31 pits, they will not do it by back-door privatisation. They must have the guts to tell the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that they support the millions of people out there in the country who believe that the mines should stay open.
If the Government really believe in cutting unemployment, they have an opportunity to save 100,000 jobs in the course of the next few weeks—the 30,000 miners' jobs that would be lost and the 70,000 others. If they do not do that, those Ministers, including the Minister for Energy, who are smirking away on the Front Bench, will be adding to that enormous unemployment total in Britain which is now more than 4 million in real terms.
What will that unemployment cost? It is already costing £30 billion to finance that pile of human misery known as


the dole queue. It is economic madness. We should not be adding to it, and nor should the Government. Anyone who wants to help the coal industry should be calling for a cut in imports—20 million tonnes this year coming from slave labour economies, some of it much dearer than the coal that is mined in Britain.
Bolsover pit in my constituency was producing coal the other week at 67p per gigajoule, yet the Government talk about pits not being competitive. Now that the pound has been devalued by between 15 and 20 per cent., we should not be importing coal but exporting it to every country in the world.
If the Government want to save some more pits, they can cut down on opencast mining, which produced 18·5 million tonnes last year. We can do without it. Let us reduce it to the level it was when the Labour Government left office. Let us reduce the imports to the 5 million tonnes when the Labour Government left office. If we did that, we would save another 12 or 13 pits. Let us close the Magnox nuclear stations and save six more pits. Let us cut the French nuclear link and save another half a dozen pits.
If the Government or any Tory Member had the will or the guts to save the pits, it would be relatively easy to do so. The result would be that, instead of spending £900 million to finance 100,000 people out of work, with a subsidy only half that which Nuclear Power gets for 22 per cent. of the energy market, we would be saving the British taxpayer several hundred million pounds. It would not be a subsidy; it would be a saving. Those who want to help us to save the pits have plenty of opportunities to do so.
I finish on this note. My hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) knows a little bit about private mines, because the north-east has one or two. He told me about one incident fairly recently when the haulage rope in a private mine snapped. Because the mine was trying to save money, a knot was tied in the rope. That would not be allowed under the Mines and Quarries Act 1954.
How will private mines cope with pumping out water from the adjoining collieries that have been closed? Have the Government ever stopped to think about that? If Silverhill colliery were sold to a group of entrepreneurs, they would have to pay £250,000 for every pump to pump the water out of another pit five miles up the road. Would they do it? Of course they would not. They would go running to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry asking for a subsidy to pump out the water from somebody else's pit. How will they pump out the methane from an adjoining colliery? That would have to be done. It sounds all right to have a little private mine, but mines are not little and they are not private, if you want to compete in the energy market. The environmental problems of the water and methane would have to be dealt with. The whole thing is a load of nonsense. That is why those who took part in a private mine in Scotland are, despite their sterling efforts, realising that they are having to carry the costs that belong to somebody else. So do not let us talk nonsense.
The mines have always been a case of battling against mother nature. It is not like working in a factory. The strong mines help the weak, and sometimes the strong mines become weak and the weak mines become strong as they find a better coal seam. Let us have some common sense.
People think that they can come up with tinpot answers and solve the problem. The problem is staring the

Government in the face. Save the 31 pits, and if we start exporting coal, the balance of payments problem will be solved—

Madam Speaker: Order. Time's up.

Question put, pursuant to Standing Order No. 19 (Motions for leave to bring in Bills and nomination of Select Committees at commencement of public business):—

The House divided: Ayes 55, Noes 180.

Division No. 167]
[3.55 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Harris, David


Ashby, David
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Hunter, Andrew


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Jenkin, Bernard


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Jessel, Toby


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Lidington, David


Butler, Peter
Nicholson, David (Taunton)


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Pawsey, James


Carttiss, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Cash, William
Porter, David (Waveney)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Shaw, David (Dover)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Congdon, David
Spink, Dr Robert


Cormack, Patrick
Sweeney, Walter


Couchman, James
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Day, Stephen
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Tracey, Richard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Viggers, Peter


Dunn, Bob
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Dykes, Hugh
Waterson, Nigel


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Whittingdale, John


Fabricant, Michael
Willetts, David


Fry, Peter



Gallie, Phil
Tellers for the Ayes:


Gorst, John
Mr. James Cran and


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Mrs. Angela Knight.


Griffiths. Peter (Portsmouth, N)



NOES


Adams, Mrs Irene
Darling, Alistair


Ainger, Nick
Davidson, Ian


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Ashton, Joe
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Austin-Walker, John
Denham, John


Barnes, Harry
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Dobson, Frank


Bell, Stuart
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dun woody, Mrs Gwyneth


Betts, Clive
Eagle, Ms Angela


Blunkett, David
Enright, Derek


Boyce, Jimmy
Etherington, Bill


Boyes, Roland
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Bradley. Keith
Fatchett, Derek


Burden, Richard
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Fisher, Mark


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Flynn, Paul


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Foster, Don (Bath)


Cann, Jamie
Foulkes, George


Chisholm, Malcolm
Fyfe, Maria


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Garrett, John


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gerrard, Neil


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clelland, David
Golding, Mrs Llin


Cohen, Harry
Graham, Thomas


Connarty, Michael
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Corbyn, Jeremy
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Cousins, Jim
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Grocott, Bruce


Dafis, Cynog
Gunnell, John






Hain, Peter
Mudie, George


Hall, Mike
Mullin, Chris


Harvey, Nick
Murphy, Paul


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
O'Hara, Edward


Hood, Jimmy
Olner, William


Hoon, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hutton, John
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Purchase, Ken


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Jamieson, David
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Reid, Dr John


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jowell, Tessa
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Salmond, Alex


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheerman, Barry


Khabra, Piara S.
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Kilfoyle, Peter
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kirkwood, Archy
Simpson, Alan


Leighton, Ron
Skinner, Dennis


Lewis, Terry
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Rt Hon John (M'kl'ds E)


Livingstone, Ken
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Spearing, Nigel


Loyden, Eddie
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Macdonald, Calum
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McFall, John
Stott, Roger


McKelvey, William
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mackinlay, Andrew
Straw, Jack


McMaster, Gordon
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Turner, Dennis


Mallon, Seamus
Tyler, Paul


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Walley, Joan


Martin, Michael J. (Springburn)
Wicks, Malcolm


Martlew, Eric
Wigley, Dafydd


Maxton, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Meale, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Michael, Alun
Winnick, David


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wise, Audrey


Milburn, Alan
Wray, Jimmy


Morgan, Rhodri
Wright, Dr Tony


Morley, Elliot



Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Tellers for the Noes:


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Mr. Eric Illsley and


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr Michael Clapham.

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Education Bill

[2ND ALLOTTED DAY]

As amended (in the Standing Committee), considered.

Madam Speaker: We shall now proceed to consider amendments up to the end of schedule 12, and the Government motion relating to clause 214.

Clause 197

APPOINTMENT OF ADDITIONAL GOVERNORS

Mr. Win Griffiths: I beg to move amendment No. 16, in page 119, line 17 leave out 'controlled' and insert 'voluntary'.

Madam Speaker: I understand that with this it will be convenient to take also the following amendments: No. 17, in page 119, line 18 after 'may', insert—
'(a) forthwith and without any obligation to consider representations made by or on behalf of any person affected, remove from office any person who is a governor appointed by them or a co-opted governor, and
(b)'.

No. 18, in page 119, line 19 at end insert
'whether by way of replacement of persons removed from office under paragraph (a) above or as additional governors'.

No. 19, in page 119, line 20 after 'appointment', insert 'of additional governors'.

No. 20, in page 119, line 32 at end insert—

'(3) Subsection (1) above is without prejudice to section 8(5) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986 (general power of removal of governors by those who appoint them).
(4) The local education authority shall not exercise the power conferred by subsection (1)(a) in relation to a voluntary school unless they have consulted the person who appoints the school's foundation governors.
(5) In this section "co-opted governor" has the same meaning as in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986.'.

Mr. Griffiths: This group of five amendments to clause 197, which deals with the appointment of additional governors, aims to increase the local education authority's powers over schools which are considered to be at risk or over any voluntary school considered to be in the same position. The amendments provide an alternative—perhaps one could even argue that they complement what the Secretary of State is choosing to do in transferring a school considered to be at risk to an education association.
It is the Government's intention in clauses 197 and 198 to provide the LEA with a set of additional powers to try to turn around a failing school. However, the powers contained in those two clauses are insufficient, and our amendments would reinforce the powers already provided to local education authorities in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. They also propose a new power intended to be more closely equivalent to the powers that the Secretary of State has taken to himself in clause 58 over the governing body of an at-risk grant-maintained school. We seek parity of power and esteem for a local education authority to act in


respect of a maintained school or a voluntary school in the same way as the Secretary of State would act in respect of an at-risk grant-maintained school.
Let us look at some of the detail of the amendments. Amendment No. 17, the first of the main elements of the group, provides for an unrestricted power summarily to remove any local authority appointed governor or co-opted governor, which would effectively enable a majority of the governing body to be replaced. As I have said, that is equivalent to the Secretary of State's power under clause 58 to replace the first governors in a grant-maintained school which is a former county school.
The amendment would provide a power to remove co-opted governors, which is an innovation, proposed mainly in order to provide a power to remove and replace a majority of the governing body of a county school without affecting parent governors or teacher governors. In the case of voluntary schools, local education authority appointees and co-opted governors do not constitute a majority, but the person who appoints foundation governors already has a power, albeit a restricted power, to remove them.
Thus, the powers in clause 197, even with the amendments, would require the person with that power over the foundation governors to be involved in order to replace a majority of the governing body. The local education authority's existing power to remove LEA appointed governors, and the equivalent powers held by others to remove foundation governors, come from section 8(5) of the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. There have been legal challenges to that power, as in the case of Brunyate v. ILEA in 1989. Thus, the intention of amendment 17 is to make local education authorities' powers in the case of an at-risk school entirely unambiguous, and to extend them to cover co-opted governors under the same terms.
Amendment No. 16 may be contentious in that it proposes to widen the scope of clause 197 to include voluntary-aided schools as well as voluntary-controlled schools. Nevertheless, that is not intended to shift the main weight of responsibility for removing governors, which lies with the person who appoints the foundation governors. In the exceptional circumstances—I repeat and emphasise the phrase "exceptional circumstances"—in which a voluntary-aided school may find itself at risk, and for as long as it remains at risk, the amended clause would permit the local authority to appoint extra governors so that the foundation governors would not comprise a majority.
The new subsection (4) of clause 197, suggested in amendment No. 20, would require that the local education authority's powers over the governing body of a voluntary school be used only after consultation with the person who appointed the foundation governors. In other words, unlike the clause as currently drafted, the clause as amended would provide for such consultation in the case of voluntary-controlled schools. As the clause stands the Government seem to have no intention of allowing such consultation.
The second element in the group of amendments is to be found in amendment No. 18, which would completely change the thrust of clause 197 from being concerned exclusively with additional governors to a balanced approach of replacement or additional governors. The thrust of our amendments is to give local education authorities exactly the same opportunities and powers in respect of maintained and voluntary schools as the

Secretary of State has or will have over grant-maintained schools which are former county schools and which may become at risk. We hope that the Government will accept that it is preferable to give the local education authority extra power similar to that of the Secretary of State to turn round a school which is at risk.
Even under existing powers, local education authorities occasionally intervene effectively to turn around failing schools. I can cite one school, which I shall not name, to show how a local education authority can work effectively. A couple of years ago, the school was between one third and half full. The local education authority determined that it would have to take action, and within two years that same school is now over-subscribed. Local education authorities can do that job.

Mr. James Pawsey: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument closely, and I very much applaud what he had to say about the LEA that turned the school around, but I expect that he would be the first to agree that, sadly, not all LEAs can do that. Failing schools exist despite the best endeavours of local education authorities. That is where my right hon. Friend's admirable initiative comes in. The education association is a long stop, but it sorts out that problem. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will join me in welcoming my right hon. Friend's views on the matter.

Mr. Griffiths: I shall turn to that in a moment. Let me point out to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who I know has a long-standing interest in education—although it is sometimes misguided—that our amendments seek to strengthen the powers of a local education authority to deal with an at-risk school and to place those powers on a par with the powers of the Secretary of State in respect of grant-maintained schools which might become at risk. We know that that has happened, and that there were tremendous difficulties in dealing with that problem.
One reason why LEAs often encounter difficulties, whether or not they are entirely justified, is the question whether they have untrammelled powers to take action against a school that is at risk. Our amendments, by giving LEAs the same powers as the Secretary of State, will make it abundantly clear that they should take action. If they fail to act, the Secretary of State's own powers to create an education authority will come into play.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I applaud the heart of the hon. Gentleman, but is his head working too? He said that the school was one third to half full. Does he accept that there are 900,000 surplus school places in Britain, including 19,000 surplus secondary school places in Lancashire? The money that is spent on those surplus places should be funding other schools, and in Lancashire providing more places at the overcrowded Lancashire primary schools. The hon. Gentleman is moving the pieces round the chess board. We want to get rid of surplus places.

Mr. Griffiths: I thank the hon. Lady for her intervention, although it is at a tangent to my argument. Surplus places cannot be discussed under the issue of failing schools, unless the hon. Lady is suggesting that, as soon as a school is seen to be failing, it should be closed completely rather than being given a second chance.

The Secretary of State for Education (Mr. John Patten): I am sure that the hon. Gentleman agrees that there is only one chance for any child in his or her school career; there is no second chance. Does he agree that, in the case of a school such as the one to which he has referred—which he properly has not named—if the local education authority does not move swiftly and effectively, the next thing to happen, once the Bill is enacted, will be for the education association to become effective? If the education association does not move in, the school will wither on the vine, and with that withering process may come the ruin of the careers of the declining number of children in the school.

Mr. Griffiths: The whole point of the amendment is to give the local education authority the power to move in unambiguously, as the Secretary of State hopes that the education association will do.
Our hope is that, if the Government give a favourable wind to our amendments, the powers of the LEA to act to stop schools failing will be on a par with the Secretary of State's powers. At present, LEAs do not have the same powers. I do not pretend to be an expert on how local education authorities work vis-a-vis all schools that are at risk. There was a fear that LEAs might not have sufficient powers to carry out a full-scale exercise if the head of a school at risk put up a fight. One can hardly imagine that a head would do that, but it seems that they have in the past.
I do not seek to give an LEA any powers that the Secretary of State will not exercise. I hope that, by giving new powers to the LEA, which are on a par with his own, we will help it to move into schools at risk at the earliest stage, instead of wondering how effectively it can act. The amendment would obviate the need for the education association to move in in such cases.
There is no guarantee that the education association will be successful. By definition, it could involve men and women who have been retired from education for some time and who may not be fully conversant with all the problems in a local authority area. For all the good will that the Secretary of State sees behind the concept, the education association may not be the best body to act. Local education authorities, equipped with the powers proposed in the amendment, will be able to move effectively against falling schools.

Mr. Pawsey: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that one of the principal virtues of the education association is that it will be new, independent and unbiased? It will not be touched by association with the LEA. There may be a dispute, an argument or a background problem, but the education association will come into the school absolutely impartially. The LEA may not be seen as impartial, and that may hold it back.

Mr. Griffiths: We are moving on to new ground with the education associations, so there is nothing against which we can test the hon. Gentleman's argument. It must be supposition and hope at this stage, as there is no evidence on which he can base a valid argument. We do not know how the Secretary of State will act in appointing education associations. An association might turn out to be a good friend of the head of a school at risk and might, because of that, feel a constraint. We can only speculate about what an association might do.
On the other hand, a local education authority with a determination to deal with a failing school, particularly with the powers that we propose it should have—powers which are no greater than those possessed by the Secretary of State in respect of a grant-maintained school at risk —would be able to act effectively. If for some reason, in a minority of cases, it turned out not to be effective, that would become apparent quickly and the education association might then have a chance to act.
Many people perceive the education associations as a rather confrontational group of educational SAS people parachuted into a situation about which they might know little, and the result could be much heartache and no success. On the other hand, if the LEA were given the powers that we propose, it would be able to act effectively. The backstop position of the education association would remain in the unlikely event of the LEA not having done its job properly.
On the basis that we would not be giving the LEA more power to deal with maintained or voluntary schools than the Secretary of State has to deal with grant-maintained schools, we trust that the Government will accept the amendment.

Mr. Don Foster: This group of Opposition amendments raises important issues about educational standards in schools and in particular about who carries responsibility for improving standards and how those responsibilities shall be implemented. We are concerned with part V of the Bill, which sits uncomfortably on the Education Act 1988 and the Education Act 1992 because it fails to establish a clear framework of what should be done, who should be doing it and how it should be carried out.
The 1988 Act delegated more responsibility to school governors and the 1992 Act provided for schools to be regularly inspected using nationally defined criteria, with the governing body carrying the responsibility to act on the findings of those inspections. Sadly, the clause that we are discussing concentrates on only that small proportion of schools which, when inspected, are found to be at risk.
Such schools undoubtedly need help, but I suspect that it may be too late for many of them. In a recent intervention, the Secretary of State referred to the way in which education associations might be able to provide assistance to schools. But schools which have been defined as being at risk may be beyond hope of redemption. So we should also be examining what support can be offered to the governing bodies of schools at an earlier stage, rather than concentrating on the crude interventionist procedures in the Bill. More work should be done with governing bodies in a constructive way long before schools are defined as failing schools.
4.30 pm
It is a great pity, therefore, that in our debate yesterday constraints of time prevented us from discussing some of the new clauses and amendments that had been tabled. For example, my new clause 15 and amendment No. 29, which Madam Speaker had been kind enough to select, would have extended the requirements for governors' annual reports to give clearer information to parents and other interested observers about what the school had achieved each year within the framework of the national inspection criteria. New clause 17 and amendment No. 32 would have ensured that the annual appraisal of the performance of


the school's headteacher was properly independent and objective. My amendments Nos. 30 and 31 would have placed much greater emphasis on a governing body's financial planning. A much broader approach to quality assurance is needed in our schools, reinforcing the leading decision-making role played by school governors.
Clause 197 and the amendments rightly address the question of governing bodies—even though, as I suggested, the remedy would come rather late in the day and only in extreme circumstances. In such circumstances, the question must be whether the local education authority has sufficient powers to turn round the school governing body's problems. Without amendments No. 16 to 20, the answer must undoubtedly be no.
The Government themselves have shown that to be the case. Their proposed remedy in clause 58 for grant-maintained schools in similarly extreme circumstances gives much greater power—the power to replace the majority of the governing body. Yet clause 197, dealing with local education authority schools, only offers the local education authority the power to acquire a majority by adding more and more governors to the governing body, increasing the size of the governing body almost without limit. Clearly, that is not a sensible approach. The amendments provide a sensible approach and I hope that they will be accepted.

Mr. David Jamieson: The amendments would give more power to local education authorities to deal with failing schools. I shall concentrate on the only alternative provided by the Government—that of establishing education associations—which manifestly fails to solve the problem in hand. The amendments would obviate the need for education associations by giving local education authorities more powers to act.
No reasonable hon. Member would impede any measure that addressed the problem of schools that are failing their pupils—whether LEA-maintained, grant-maintained, independent or private schools or city technology colleges. I am led to wonder why the provisions for the establishment of education associations—which we seek to remove from the Bill—deal only with LEA-maintained schools. If the Government were genuine in their alleged concern for pupils in failing schools, they would have introduced measures which dealt with problems in all schools.
We have not tackled the question of how big the problem is, and it needs to be quantified. On Second Reading and since, the Secretary of State has referred to his "little list", which we are led to believe consists of just over 100 schools.

Mr. Patten: On a matter of information, the list to which I referred is not in my hands but in the hands of the inspector, who is entirely independent. I have seen no such list. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is Her Majesty's chief inspector who will make representations to me about schools that he regards as failing, and I repeat that he is totally independent.

Mr. Jamieson: I am grateful for the Secretary of State's clarification. The right hon. Gentleman will recall that in his evidence to the Select Committee he referred to the report of the chief inspector which indicates that about 200 schools are at risk. The Secretary of State has referred several times to the existence of a little list. On 28 October he admitted to the Select Committee that the proportion of

the 23,000 to 24,000 schools was not large. I am glad to say that, for once, I agree with him. In fact, the figure is between 0·5 and 1 per cent. May I assume, therefore, that the Secretary of State will congratulate the LEAs on their conduct of the 99 per cent. of schools that are clearly being run well? If a similar survey throughout Brtitish industry could reveal a success rate of 99 per cent. and a failure rate of only 1 per cent. the official receivers would be far less overworked.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right to draw attention to the fact that the majority of schools are functioning well. However, a very small number are not functioning so well as he and I would like. Surely the object of the education association is to come in as a long-stop and sort out those that are failing.

Mr. Jamieson: I wish that the hon. Gentleman's assertion were correct. My point is that LEAs have been very successful in dealing with schools that have problems. That was indicated in the Secretary of State's evidence to the Select Committee. The right hon. Gentleman said that 99 per cent. of schools were functioning extremely well. The amendments with which we are dealing would give local education authorities more power to deal with the remaining 0·5 to 1 per cent. Our assertion is that the LEAs are best placed to do for those schools what they have done for the other 99 per cent., and we want the authorities to have the necessary power.

Mr. Pawsey: I suspect that there is very little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself. I acknowledge the point that he makes, and he is right to make it. All I am saying is that the LEA will already have had a good crack at turning a failing school round. In such circumstances, authorities try very hard. Unfortunately, in a very small number of cases they are not successful. It is in respect of the 0·5 to 1 per cent. of schools that the education association will come in. This will happen right at the end of the line—after everything else has been tried. As I have said, there is little difference between the hon. Gentleman and myself.

Mr. Jamieson: If there is so little difference between us, why does the hon. Gentleman keep bobbing up and down? If he will stay in his place and contain his excitement for a few moments, I will say why I believe that the Government's alternative is utterly disastrous and why our amendment would be far more efficacious. There is one matter in respect of which there may be less agreement between the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth and myself: I wonder whether the creation of education associations has more to do with the establishment of grant-maintained schools by the back door than with genuine concern about schools that are failing.

Mr. Pawsey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way again?

Mr. Jamieson: As an act of supreme generosity, I will give way to the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey). Unlike the Secretary of State, I know the hon. Gentleman's constituency.

Mr. Pawsey: I have achieved a hat trick of interventions in the hon. Gentleman's speech.
There is no need to talk about the introduction of grant-maintained schools by the back door. Grant-maintained schools will be established because parents want them. The hon. Gentleman is well aware that literally


hundreds of grant-maintained schools have so far emerged. By 1996, or thereabouts, there will be thousands of such schools. [HON. MEMBERS: "Hear, hear."] I am obliged to my hon. Friends for their support. There is no need for us to try the back-door approach because, frankly, schools will be flooding in through the front door that we have opened.

Mr. Jameison: We have not been surprised by any avalanche of schools going grant-maintained recently. The Bill is before us because of the Government's supreme disappointment that more schools have not gone grant-maintained in the past four years. I shall deal with the points made by the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in a moment.
We need to contrast the power which the local education authority could have under our amendments and what the Government are proposing. The proposed education associations would be a sort of flying squad of four or five members going into a school to sort it out. The powers given to the education associations deserve some examination.
During the Committee on the Bill, it became clear that a third sort of school will be created when an education association is sent in. This may help the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth because I shall contrast my point to that which he made. If an education association is sent in to a school, the school will no longer be a local education authority school, nor will it be grant-maintained. The school will lie somewhere between the two.
During the Committee, the Minister—unlike the Secretary of State who was unable to attend any of the sessions of the Committee—said that the school will be in a state of limbo. The Minister was clear about this in Committee and I quote:
If an education association has been established for a school, ipso facto that school ceases to be maintained by the LEA … Schools under an education association are not grant-maintained schools"—[Official Report, Standing Committee E; 2 February 1993, c. 1247–48.]
At a stroke, a new school had been created which was neither local education authority nor grant maintained. The Minister also told the Committee that the education association would employ the people in schools.
As the debate went on, it became clear that funding for the education association for a school would come through the funding agency. Once the education association has done its work, what are the alternatives? The alternatives in the Bill are clear: first, the school should cease to exist—it should close. Secondly, it should become grant-maintained. There is no suggestion in the Bill that the school then goes back to the local education authority and that it should be controlled by the authority.
The Bill does not tell us whether there will be a ballot of parents to send the school grant-maintained after the education association has done its work. Will parents have a role in deciding that their children's school will become grant-maintained after an education association has been in? There is no provision in the Bill to do that.
In the White Paper, the Government said that the only significant extra funding provided in the Bill would be additional expenditure for the establishment and operation of the funding agency. We were disappointed

because we felt that there were many areas of concern in the education system which could have done with extra funding.
In Committee, it was revealed that funding will be required for the operation of education associations. In the first instance, the charge for administering the education associations will fall on school budgets. A failing school which may already be underfunded therefore will have a further burden of cloying bureaucracy in the shape of the education association put on it. We were told that the education association could call in specialised advice and set up committees.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am listening with great interest to what the hon. Gentleman is saying. I do not necessarily criticise this, but he seems to be straying widely from the original amendment.

Mr. Win Griffiths: It is the other side of the argument.

Mr. Thompson: I said that I found the hon. Gentleman's remarks interesting. There are considerable powers for local education authorities to find ways in which to improve schools which are likely to come into the category of failing schools. Will the hon. Gentleman comment on that? Bearing in mind that he is talking at some length about the whole concept of education associations, I fail to understand why Opposition Members have continually sought to wreck the Bill by removing the whole idea of a new initiative to improve and help children in failing schools. Can the hon. Gentleman explain that to the House?

Mr. Jamieson: I am sure that hon. Members have noted the bid by the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) to take over the job of the Chair by keeping this debate in order. If he does so again, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I am sure that you will put him right.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Morris): Order. I will correct any hon. Member who veers outside the provinces of the debate, but so far no one has done that.

Mr. Jamieson: It was certainly not my intention to suggest that you had not kept any hon. Member in order. I was simply a little surprised that the hon. Member for Norwich, North appeared to be trying to do the job on your behalf.
My point is that our amendments suggest methods by which local education authorities could be more successful in tackling failing schools. I am contrasting that with the proposal in the Bill for education associations to tackle failing schools. I think that the proposal in the Bill will manifestly fail because it sets in place a further level of bureaucracy to be imposed on schools. The costs of that bureaucracy will also be placed on schools.
We were told that education associations could call in specialist advice and set up committees. What will be the cost of that new bureaucracy? Who will pay for that additional paper-shuffling? Will education associations pay fat fees to advisers? I should like an answer.

Several hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Jamieson: A number of hon. Members seem to want to intervene. I give way to the hon. Member for Croydon North-East (Mr. Congdon).

Mr. David Congdon: I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman is going on about the cost. I thought that the cost would be a small price to pay in those extreme cases where a school is failing and the education of the children is suffering thereby. We are talking about those extreme cases in which the local education authority has tried various measures and failed. I thought that the price was a small one to pay to improve the education for those children. They do not get a second opportunity.

Mr. Jamieson: Certainly, children do not get a second opportunity. I should add that such schools are those to which a majority of Labour Members send their children.
In the White Paper, the Government said that the only significant funding would be for the funding agency. What I am saying today is that the Government are also proposing that moneys will be spent on the education associations. The question of who the members of the education associations will be also bears examination.
I am sure that the Secretary of State would agree that the Financial Times is well known for its accurate reporting. On 29 July, the Secretary of State is reported to have said:
The education associations will be composed of retired teachers and people 'good at running things'.
Later we heard that retired head teachers and business men were likely to be enlisted. I know several retired head teachers and teachers and the last thing that they would want to do is to undertake work on a voluntary basis running failing schools. Will the appointees be vetted? Yesterday we heard the hon. Member for Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) ring alarm bells about retired head teachers. He was worried that they might not be politically correct.
I am afraid that the education association would be yet another layer of expensive bureaucracy packed with Tory placemen on fat expense accounts paid for by children's books. They will not begin to resemble the excellent teams of advisers and inspectors which LEAs were previously able to maintain. Instead, we shall have a rather elderly Dad's Army of Tory appointees, accountable to no one except the Secretary of State.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Further and Higher Education (Mr. Tim Boswell): In the limited time left to me, I shall attempt to summarise the main points that have come out of the debate. Two points seem clear to me, although the Opposition have hardly told us about them. First, the Opposition have strangely failed to mention the concomitant powers in clause 198. We are offering huge powers for the first time to LEAs to withdraw delegated budgets. That is a powerful sanction, about which we heard nothing whatever from Opposition Members.
Secondly, the clear difference has been revealed between the acceptable face of the Opposition put up front by the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and that of the hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson), who was only too anxious to reactivate class war and made most of his remarks around that theme. The hon. Member for Bridgend admitted, although his admission was heavily qualified, that there might be a case for an education association going into a school in certain circumstances, or where the alternative might otherwise be limbo or the abolition of the school.
Perhaps I could deal with the hon. Member for Devonport by assuring him—even if he is unable to pay

attention to my remarks, having taken up the greater part of the debate—that no effective cost will fall to the LEA from any arrangement to transfer a school to an education association. It is an entirely administrative matter.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) eloquently said, anticipating the intervention that I would have made, the internal costs would be entirely reasonable given that the alternative would be a failed school which had ceased to exist.

Mr. Derek Enright: Does the Minister agree that we have a strange and fearful precedent in hospital trusts? We have spent more money for more quangos and we are having to close more beds.

Mr. Boswell: I am sorry. Much as I like the hon. Gentleman, he is going rather wide of the mark. If I am to answer in eight minutes, I cannot go into hospital trusts. I should enjoy debating it on another occasion with the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) has an entirely proper interest in the standard of management in schools and the accountability of governors. All that I would say to him is that some of his remarks, as he acknowledged, related to an earlier stage in a school's decline than imminent fall. His remarks did not entirely relate to the amendments, but I noted what he said. It is within the spirit of some of the things that we would like to happen.
The amendments tabled by the official Opposition make no reference to the huge new power which is being given to LEAs to withdraw delegated budgets. Opposition Members made inadequate reference to the other significant power that we are providing. Where a school has received an at-risk report and the school and the LEA have considered an action plan, the LEA will have a power to appoint additional governors to county and controlled schools. I shall explain why the power is defined in that way.
The power has never existed under a Labour Government. We are now making it available. The hon. Member for Bridgend would do well not to look a gift horse in the mouth. We are giving local authorities sufficient powers, if they are capable of using them and if the people whom they select are appropriate, to turn schools round. They did not previously have those powers. We do not require the additional power which the Opposition propose in the amendments. That is why I shall advise my hon. Friends to resist the amendments in due course.
The reason why we do not want the further powers is that in the debate and the remarks made by Opposition Members there was a certain confusion—possibly it was a misunderstanding—between the power to appoint additional governors, which is enshrined in our proposals, and the powers of replacement of governors, to which Opposition Members referred.
I shall deal with the replacement matter first. We believe that it is proper for the local authority to be able to replace its own governors. The hon. Member for Bridgend referred to a particular case and cast doubt on whether that was possible. He referred to the relevant legislation in the Education (No. 2) Act 1986. In the case to which he referred, the LEA sought to remove LEA-appointed governors precisely because those governors planned to


vote against the wishes of the LEA on the closure of the school to become a city technology college. That was a specific, not a general case.
In general, the LEA has the power to remove its own governors. The Opposition's proposal would enable the LEA to intervene and, if I may put it this way, "dis-appoint" governors whom it had not appointed. Co-opted governors whould be those appointed by the governing body as a whole, not by the LEA—although, undoubtedly, by LEA nominees. Foundation governors would have been appointed by the foundation. The House will wish to know that the foundation may in turn replace its governors of aided or special agreement schools. We are in discussion with the churches on a parallel power which does not exist now to enable the foundation to appoint additional governors. Such a power would be analogous with the power that we propose in clause 197.
So we do not believe that it is right to enable the local education authority to go beyond the power of appointment of additional governors to replace existing governors. The main reason why we feel that that would be inappropriate is that the LEA did not appoint the governors in the first place. In aided schools the foundation has the primary responsibility for appointing the majority of the governors. As he will know, the foundation contributes to the capital, maintenance and repair costs of the school and has a close and central role in preserving and enhancing the special ethos, often religious, of the school. So we believe that the position should be protected.
Our proposals provide full and sufficient powers to LEAs to appoint additional governors. I should say in parentheses that it would be a good idea if LEAs made sure that governors whom they had appointed functioned properly, unlike the gentleman who used to turn up for the first 10 minutes of meetings so that he was not recorded as an absentee and then left, about whom we have received a recent complaint.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Like the Secretary of State?

Mr. Boswell: It has nothing to do with the Secretary of State, except that he received the letter. I am pleased that he is here to hear the debate.
Opposition Members do not seem fully to have appreciated that the number of additional members which LEAs can appoint is not constrained. One would normally expect it to be one or two. If it were necessary in order to seize control of a majority, the LEA could appoint up to the number which represents the majority of the committee so that it could turn matters round. That is fairly closely analogous to the Secretary of State's powers in grant-maintained schools to appoint additional members up to the number which would outnumber the first governors.
Amendment No. 17 is outrageous even by the standards that we have learnt to expect from the Labour party. It would enable the LEA to replace LEA or co-opted governors
forthwith and without any obligation to consider representations made by or on behalf of any person affected".
That is summary justice with a vengeance.
I remind the House that we do not want the powers because we wish to use them regularly, or for some hidden agenda that the hon. Member for Devonport has

contrived. We want them because we recognise the essential importance of saving failing schools if that is at all possible. We want local education authorities to have a reasonable chance to do so, but as a last resort we need to stand behind them with fall-back provisions so that we can take over with an education association. I am sure that my hon. Friends support the concept because we believe in putting parents first.
I advise the Opposition to consider the powers that we are offering to local education authorities to enhance their part in the process. I hope that they will understand that if local education authorities cannot come up with the goods, which might occasionally happen, it may be necessary to go to the next stage. We do not welcome or canvass that, but believe that it is absolutely necessary, in the interests of parents and their children.

It being Five o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution [2 March], put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 236, Noes 274.

Division No. 168]
[15 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Dafis, Cynog


Adams, Mrs Irene
Dalyell, Tam


Ainger, Nick
Darling, Alistair


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Davidson, Ian


Allen, Graham
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Alton, David
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'I)


Armstrong, Hilary
Denham, John


Ashton, Joe
Dewar, Donald


Austin-Walker, John
Dixon, Don


Barnes, Harry
Donohoe, Brian H.


Barron, Kevin
Dowd, Jim


Battle, John
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bayley, Hugh
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Bell, Stuart
Eagle, Ms Angela


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Eastham, Ken


Bennett, Andrew F.
Enright, Derek


Benton, Joe
Etherington, Bill


Bermingham, Gerald
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Berry, Dr. Roger
Fatchett, Derek


Betts, Clive
Faulds, Andrew


Blair, Tony
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Blunkett, David
Fisher, Mark


Boyce, Jimmy
Flynn, Paul


Boyes, Roland
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Bradley, Keith
Foster, Don (Bath)


Burden, Richard
Foulkes, George


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Garrett, John


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
George, Bruce


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
Gerrard, Neil


Cann, Jamie
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Graham, Thomas


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Grocott, Bruce


Connarty, Michael
Gunnell, John


Corbett, Robin
Hain, Peter


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hall, Mike


Cousins, Jim
Hanson, David


Cryer, Bob
Harvey, Nick


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy


Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)
Henderson, Doug


Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John
Heppell, John






Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Hinchliffe, David
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Hoey, Kate
O'Hara, Edward


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Olner, William


Hood, Jimmy
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hoon, Geoffrey
Parry, Robert


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Pendry, Tom


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Pickthall, Colin


Hoyle, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Pope, Greg


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hutton, John
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Ingram, Adam
Prescott, John


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Primarolo, Dawn


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Purchase, Ken


Jamieson, David
Quin, Ms Joyce


Janner, Greville
Randall, Stuart


Johnston, Sir Russell
Raynsford, Nick


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Redmond, Martin


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Reid, Dr John


Jowell, Tessa
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Keen, Alan
Rogers, Allan


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Rooker, Jeff


Khabra, Piara S.
Rooney, Terry


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Kirkwood, Archy
Ruddock, Joan


Leighton, Ron
Sedgemore, Brian


Lewis, Terry
Sheerman, Barry


Litherland, Robert
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Livingstone, Ken
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Short, Clare


Llwyd, Elfyn
Simpson, Alan


Loyden, Eddie
Skinner, Dennis


Lynne, Ms Liz
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


McAllion, John
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


McAvoy, Thomas
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


McCartney, Ian
Snape, Peter


Macdonald, Calum
Soley, Clive


McFall, John
Spearing, Nigel


McKelvey, William
Spellar, John


Mackinlay, Andrew
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Maclennan, Robert
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McMaster, Gordon
Steinberg, Gerry


McWilliam, John
Stott, Roger


Madden, Max
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Mahon, Alice
Straw, Jack


Mallon, Seamus
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Mandelson, Peter
Tipping, Paddy


Marek, Dr John
Turner, Dennis


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Tyler, Paul


Martlew, Eric
Wallace, James


Maxton. John
Walley, Joan


Meacher, Michael
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Meale, Alan
Wicks, Malcolm


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Wigley, Dafydd


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Milburn, Alan
Wilson, Brian


Mitchell, Austin (Gt Grimsby)
Winnick, David


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Wise, Audrey


Morgan, Rhodri
Worthington, Tony


Morley. Elliot
Wray, Jimmy


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Mowlam, Marjorie



Mudie, George
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mullin, Chris
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle and


Murphy, Paul
Mr. Eric Illsley.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)


Amess, David
Baldry, Tony


Ancram, Michael
Banks, Matthew (Southport)


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Bates, Michael


Ashby, David
Bellingham, Henry


Aspinwall, Jack
Bendall, Vivian


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Beresford, Sir Paul





Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Rt Hon Archie (Epsom,)


Bright, Graham
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hannam, Sir John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burns, Simon
Harris, David


Burt, Alistair
Haselhurst, Alan


Butcher, John
Hawkins, Nick


Butler, Peter
Hawksley, Warren


Butterfill, John
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Conway, Derek
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jenkin, Bernard


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jessel, Toby


Cormack, Patrick
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Couchman, James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cran, James
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Key, Robert


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Day, Stephen
Kirkhope, Timothy


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knapman, Roger


Devlin, Tim
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knox, David


Dover, Den
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan, Alan
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Dunn, Bob
Leigh, Edward


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lennox-Boyd, Mark


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Elletson, Harold
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfleld)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacKay, Andrew


Evennett, David
Maclean, David


Faber, David
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fabricant, Michael
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Madel, David


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Fishburn, Dudley
Malone, Gerald


Forman, Nigel
Mans, Keith


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Marlow, Tony


Forth, Eric
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Fox. Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


Freeman, Roger
Mellor, Rt Hon David


French, Douglas
Merchant, Piers


Fry, Peter
Milligan, Stephen


Gale, Roger
Mills, Iain


Gallie, Phil
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)






Monro, Sir Hector
Spink, Dr Robert


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Spring, Richard


Moss, Malcolm
Sproat, Iain


Needham, Richard
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Neubert, Sir Michael
Steen, Anthony


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Stephen, Michael


Nicholls, Patrick
Stern, Michael


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Stewart, Allan


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Streeter, Gary


Norris, Steve
Sumberg, David


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Sweeney, Walter


Ottaway, Richard
Sykes, John


Page, Richard
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Paice, James
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Patnick, Irvine
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Patten, Rt Hon John
Thomason, Roy


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Pawsey, James
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Thurnham, Peter


Pickles, Eric
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Tracey, Richard


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Tredinnick, David


Rathbone, Tim
Trend, Michael


Redwood, John
Twinn, Dr Ian


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Viggers, Peter


Richards, Rod
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Riddick, Graham
Walden, George


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Robathan, Andrew
Waller, Gary


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Ward, John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Waterson, Nigel


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Wells, Bowen


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Whitney, Ray


Sackville, Tom
Whittingdale, John


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Widdecombe, Ann


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Shaw, David (Dover)
Willetts, David


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Wilshire, David


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Winterton, Nicholas (Macc'f'Id)


Shersby, Michael
Wolfson, Mark


Sims, Roger
Wood, Timothy


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Yeo, Tim


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Soames, Nicholas



Spencer, Sir Derek
Tellers for the Noes:


Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)
Mr. James Arbuthnot and


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Mr. Robert G. Hughes.

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government to the end of schedule 12 on the motion relating to clause 214.

Question agreed to.

Clause 202

SUPERVISION OF EDUCATION ASSOCIATIONS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 199, in page 121, line 16, at end insert—
`( ) Before giving a direction under this section, the Secretary of State shall consult the education association or (as the case may be) each education association to which the direction applies unless, for reasons of urgency, it is not in his opinion reasonably practicable for him to do so.'—[Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 212

PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. OF SCHOOLS BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITY

Amendments made: No. 161, in page 126, line 2, leave out `(1)' and insert `(1A)'.

No. 162, in page 126, line 11, leave out 'in' and insert 'to'.—[ Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 213

PROPOSALS FOR ESTABLISHMENT, ETC. OF VOLUNTARY SCHOOLS BY PROMOTERS, ETC.

Amendment made: No. 163, in page 126, line 39, leave out 'in' and insert `to'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 214

DIRECTIONS TO BRING FORWARD PROPOSALS

Ordered,
That Clause No. 214 be divided into three Clauses, the first consisting of subsections (1) to (4), the second of subsections (5) to (8) and (11) [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision, in maintained schools] and the third of the remaining subsections [supplementary provisions] and the third Clause be transferred to the end of line 38 on page 131.

Amendments made: No. 164, in page 127, line 16, leave out 'in' and insert 'to'.

No. 165, in page 128, line 9, leave out 'this section' and insert
`section No. or No. of this Act'.

No. 166, in page 128, line 12, leave out 'this section' and insert
`section [in Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] or [Directions to bring forward proposals for additional provision in maintained schools] of this Act'.

No. 167, in page 128, line 20, at end insert—
`( ) Proposals made in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act may not be withdrawn without the consent of the Secretary of State and such consent may be given on such conditions (if any) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.
( ) Notwithstanding anything in section 17 of this Act, a county or voluntary school is not eligible for grant-maintained status—

(a) if the local education authority have made any proposals in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to approve or implement the proposals has been made under section 12 of the Education Act 1980 or section 217 of this Act, or
(b) if the Secretary of State has made any proposals under section 215 of this Act for the local education authority to cease to maintain the school which have not been withdrawn and no determination whether or not to adopt the proposals has been made under section 217 of this Act.

( ) Section 242(4) and (5) of this Act does not apply in relation to any proposals under section 12(1)(d) or 13(1)(b) of the Education Act 1980 made in pursuance of an order under section [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision] of this Act'.

No. 168, in page 128, line 23, leave out
`or section 169 of this Act'.

No. 169, in page 128, line 25 leave out
`this section and sections 215'

and insert
'sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision ]'.

No. 170, in page 128, line 29 leave out 'this section and sections 215'

and insert


'sections [Directions to bring forward proposals to remedy excessive provision]'.—[Mr. Boswell]

Clause 215

PUBLICATION OF PROPOSALS BY THE SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendment made: No. 171, in page 129, line 45 leave out 'in' and insert `to'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 216

PUBLIC INQUIRY INTO PROPOSALS

Amendments made: No. 172, in page 130, line 11 at end insert
'which he has not withdrawn'.

No. 173, in page 130, line 12 leave out
'subsection (5) of that section'

and insert
'section 215(5) of this Act'.

No. 174, in page 130, line 23 after 'authority', insert '(and not withdrawn)'.

No. 175, in page 130, line 28 after 'school', insert '(and not withdrawn)'.

No. 176, in page 130, line 29 after 'area', insert `(and not withdrawn)'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 217

ADOPTION OF PROPOSALS AND APPROVAL OF RELATED PROPOSALS

Amendments made: No. 177, in page 131, line (9 after 'adopt', insert
'with or without modifications, or determine not to adopt'.

No. 178, in page 131, line 23 leave out second 'the' and insert 'their'. —[Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 220

NATIONAL CURRICULUM

Mr. Don Foster: I beg to move amendment No. 104, in page 133, line 2, after 'Curriculum)', insert—

(a) in subsection (1)(b) (basic curriculum), after "which" there is added—

"—(i)",

(b) at the end of that subsection there is inserted—
"and

(ii) where the school provides secondary education, includes such arrangements for vocational education or training as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages.",

(c) in subsection (2) for "subsection (1)(b)" there is substituted "subsection (1)(b)(i)", and
(d)'.

The amendment looks complicated on paper, but it is simple in practice. It seeks to insert vocational education or training into the basic curriculum for secondary schools. It aims to reform the national curriculum so that it comes closer to fulfilling the description of a national curriculum that is balanced and broadly based.
During the debate in Standing Committee, hon. Members agreed with the need to give equality of esteem and parity to both academic and vocational provision, which the amendment would allow. In skeleton form, it says:
such arrangements …as may be prescribed for registered pupils of prescribed ages.

In the form presented, it would give the Secretary of State the power to prescribe the arrangements. In a fully developed form, I hope that it would seek to extend the role of the Schools Curriculum and Assessment Authority to advise on such arrangements for vocational educational and qualifications. Our debate in Committee covered some aspects of how the role of the SCAA could be extended to do that. The amendment is intended to address the principle of a balanced curriculum for secondary schools.
5.15 pm
In Committee, the Minister said:
We want it"—
the national curriculum—
in place to ensure that pupils no longer lose out on the fundamental skills, knowledge and understanding needed for all aspects of their adult life. It looks forward to what they will be doing in a few years' time and provides them with the necessary equipment for that task.
I am sure that the Minister had in mind not only academic work, but the world of work for pupils in secondary schools.
The Minister was particularly encouraging when he continued:
We do not have closed minds and are prepared to keep the national curriculum under review."—[Official Report, Standing Committee E, 2 February 1993; c. 1314.]
The amendment gives the Minister an opportunity to demonstrate that he does not have a closed mind and is willing to continue the review of the national curriculum. I hope that in doing so he will give thought to the way in which he and his Conservative 'colleagues have sometimes talked about the importance of vocational education, but have rarely provided an opportunity for it fully to flower in our schools, not least because of their continued insistence on what they tend to call the gold standard of A-levels in our sixth forms. Only by breaking down the belief in the gold standard of A-levels will we be likely to move towards the parity of esteem that is frequently proposed and espoused by Conservative Members.
Amendment No. 104 will change parts of clause 2 of the Education Reform Act 1988. It will establish the context in which we should remember that clause 1 of that Act requires there to be a
balanced and broadly based curriculum which—

(a) promotes the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of pupils at the school and of society; and"—

significantly—
prepares such pupils for the opportunities, reponsibilities and experiences of adult life.
Clause 2 of the 1988 Act describes the national curriculum, but it is an incomplete description as it fails to lake account of the parts in clause 1 referring to the preparation of pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.
I accept that amendment No. 104 would radically change the nature of the national curriculum for secondary schools. It would comprise two parts: the existing structure of subjects covered by statutory requirements relating to programmes of study, attainment targets and assessment arrangements; and, separately, vocational education or training. Although the amendment is silent on the point, both parts of the restructured national curriculum should be governed by advice from one organisation—the new SCAA.
I think that the desirability of vocational education is accepted by all hon. Members. We must acknowledge that the vast majority of our secondary schools—90 per cent.
—and more than half our primary schools have some sort of link with local industry. That has been partly promoted by actions taken by the present Government, through the introduction of the technical and vocational education initiative, and their support for compacts. We must accept that in 1983 the Government set up the Business and Technician Education Council to promote vocational education and, more recently, with cross-support from all parties, they set up the National Council for Vocational Qualifications.
Such support from the Government and other parties has led to a major development of vocational education in many schools. That has also been supported by bodies outside the House. In 1989 the CBI report "Towards a Skills Revolution" recommended that national targets should be set for the overall achievement of qualifications in vocational education and training. The Government's White Paper "Education and Training for the 21st century" warmly welcomed that CBI initiative. Even the headmasters' conference got in on the act, saying that it would welcome opportunities to be involved in the planning of vocational courses which could be appropriately taught in our schools.
In the most recent general election, the Conservative party manifesto said:
We will also continue to develop new high-quality national vocational qualifications, and introduce a new post-16 diploma which recognises achievements in both vocational and academic courses.
Therefore, it is beyond doubt that there is support on both sides of the House and outside the House for vocational education to become an important element in what goes on in our secondary schools. As I have already suggested, there is growing evidence that vocational education is taking place within our secondary schools.
The question, therefore, is: why am I so anxious to ensure that we have a major change in the national curriculum? It is simply that, without ensuring that vocational education is contained within the statutory framework of the national curriculum, there is no guarantee that the work will continue or develop and there is certainly no guarantee that it will have the parity of esteem that all of us have so often said that we seek.
In introducing such a requirement, I am aware that it will mean a major cut in what is contained within the national curriculum. Many hon. Members in previous debates have talked about the overloaded national curriculum and many others, teachers, parents and governors, have echoed that concern. I for one and my party are keen to see a major slimming down of the national curriculum so that we have a minimum curriculum entitlement and much greater opportunity for individuals to develop areas of expertise that are appropriate for the children in their schools.
A major revision of the national curriculum is necessary and I hope that it will take place with detailed consultation with all involved in the partnership that makes up our education service so that in due course we shall see a revised, slimmer national curriculum which includes within the statutory structure reference to vocational education.
The issue is one of principle about parity between academic and vocational qualifications. The thrust of the amendment is that all schools should fulfil the aims set out in section 1 of the Education Reform Act 1988. The amendment introduces an entitlement to vocational

education and training for pupils in secondary education as an element of a balanced curriculum aimed at preparing such pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. Therefore, I hope that it will gain the support of hon. Members on both sides of the House.

Mr. Pawsey: I listened with considerable interest to the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster). He advanced a powerful case for vocational education. But the problem is that the national curriculum has proved so successful that everyone now seems to want to get in on the act. The idea being advanced by the hon. Gentleman clearly has some virtues and sounds good, but I suspect that every hon. Member has his own idea of what subjects should be in the national curriculum and how much time should be allocated to them.
I noted with interest what the hon. Gentleman said about the need for schools to liaise with local industry. He was right to draw attention to the importance of the links that exist with local industry. I am well aware that secondary schools in my constituency are in close touch with local industries, to the benefit of school and industry alike.
There might, however, be a case for fewer subjects within the national curriculum. I see that I have the support of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson), whose knowledge in this area is considerable. There is an argument that we should concentrate on a core curriculum of, say, English, maths, the sciences, history and geography, with those subjects taking up about 60 per cent. of the school timetable and with schools then deciding what time should be allocated to other subjects.
I appreciate that the principal reason given for the national curriculum during the passage of the 1988 Act was that some schools did not concentrate on the essential subjects and that much school time was being wasted on subjects which could only be described as peripheral. I am happy to say that that point had support from both sides of the House.
In the current educational climate, there does not seem to be an overwhelming requirement for such a prescriptive national curriculum as currently exists or as the hon. Gentleman would have. For example, much more information about schools and what is taking place within them is available today compared with 1987–88. For example, schools now issue reports and prospectuses. We read examination results and truancy tables. Inspections now take place every four years and we have more parent governors. There are even annual general meetings. I am therefore beginning to wonder whether the national curriculum is as necessary as it once was.
I acknowledge what the hon. Gentleman said, although I do not go along with his comments about A-levels and the gold standard. I believe passionately that A-level is the gold standard. The three-year British degree hinges on the quality of A-levels. If that is diminished, I am apprehensive about what will take place in our universities. The British degree remains the envy of the world and I do not wish to see it diminished or diluted in any way. Therefore, I hold firmly to the view that the A-level is the gold standard.

Mr. Enright: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that some form of baccalaureate, which some British children already take, is far preferable to the narrow rigidities of the A-level?

Mr. Pawsey: I have heard that argument advanced before, but I am not fully persuaded. Above all, I am concerned about tinkering with our examination structure; not all the new examinations which have been introduced have proved as successful as their authors would have wished. The A-level remains the touchstone of quality and I do not wish to see it diminished in any way.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: I congratulate the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) on his amendment. Nothing better exemplifies the two-tier nature of our education system than the gap between vocational and so-called academic education. The remarks of the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) reveal the gulf between those who pride themselves on their traditional view and those who consider that view to be increasingly outmoded and unhelpful to almost all, if not all, young people.
It is nonsense to suggest that there should be a split between vocational and traditional academic education in a modern society. It should not be necessary—this is not meant as a criticism—for such an amendment to have any relevance in our education system or to have to mention the need to increase and to enhance the role of vocational training.

Mr. Pawsey: The hon. Gentleman's speech reminds me of a point that I meant to make, and I will do so in this brief intervention. I hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees that city technology colleges represent a way forward and provide an opportunity to bring vocational education on the scene. Does the hon. Gentleman agree that grant-maintained schools can specialise, to use the S-word? If they choose to specialise in technology, does that not represent a major step down the route that the hon. Gentleman favours?

Mr. Lloyd: I am afraid not. Schools are ghettoised, and then the claim is made that CTCs provide a different, better type of education. Certainly it is more expensive, but CTCs have not worked out too well. Their results show that they are not able consistently to claim that they are a means of enhancing technological education.
It is ridiculous to suggest also that many young people should be denied access to a vocational or technological strand in their education. Some years ago, the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) taught at Manchester grammar school, where it was the practice to subdivide boys at an early age into potential classicists, scientists and linguists. It is absurd to believe that young people can be segmented in that way, and destructive of their educational potential.

Mr. Pawsey: I remind the hon. Gentleman that his party did much to deny opportunities to our nation's children. As he knows, there used to be a tripartite system, comprising technical, grammar and secondary modern schools.

Mr. Jamieson: That was under Shirley Williams.

Mr. Pawsey: Yes, Shirley Williams—and the hon. Lady whose constituency I temporarily forget.

Mr. Jamieson: Finchley?

Mr. Pawsey: No, not Finchley. The hon. Gentleman thinks quickly, but not quickly enough.
Shirley Williams and the right hon. Member for Derby, South (Mrs. Beckett) were the twin architects of the present comprehensive system. I do not believe that it has assisted education in the long term. The old tripartite system, which we successfully exported to Germany and which worked so well there, was the best in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. That was a very long short intervention.

Mr. Lloyd: I can only agree, Mr. Morris. It is fair to place on record the fact that Lady Thatcher closed more grammar schools than anyone else. Legislation is on the statute book to be used not so much as a mandate as at the discretion of the Secretary of State. It was Lady Thatcher who destroyed the system that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth holds dear.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: The hon. Gentleman referred to the tremendously good school at which I had the privilege to teach between 1960 and 1965. He was critical of Manchester grammar school because at that time it operated rigorous entry selection and streaming procedures, and a division was made between those who were to specialise in the classics, mathematics, or languages.
The hon. Gentleman rather overstated the downside. The school is now independent because the Opposition, when in government, destroyed the old grant system—more's the pity. However, in those past days the school produced some superbly and broadly educated people—some of whom, I believe, entered the ranks of the civil service: for all I know, they may be sitting nearby and listening to this debate. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will concede that his criticism was a little ill judged and that Manchester grammar school produced well educated and rounded people. Nevertheless, I understand his basic point.

Mr. Lloyd: There may not be such a huge difference between the hon. Member and myself. I was making the point that it would be unacceptable at Manchester grammar school and most private schools to go down the road that the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth favours, and adopt the tripartite system—under which those whom the hon. Gentleman thinks are worthy would receive a grammar school education, those who are considered less worthy would recieve a technical education and those dismissed as educationally irrelevant would be given a secondary modern education.
Representing as I do a constituency that will operate the selective system, and remembering as I do the old tripartite system and all the problems of ghettoisation under it, I know that there can be no returning. We must find means of producing the rounded education for all young people that the hon. Member for Norwich, North urges upon me. I hope that he will urge it upon the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth, who is chairman of the Conservative Back-Bench education committee.

Mr. Pawsey: I am a little puzzled by the hon. Gentleman's views of the extraordinary word "ghettoisation". I do not know whether he takes credit for it or whether it is imported from the United States—in either case, I do not like it, and it is inaccurate. The hon. Gentleman is right to refer to three strands, but each strand provided the right type of education for the particular child entering it. As the hon. Gentleman knows,


I am the product of an elementary school and a technical school. I may not have enjoyed the privileged education experienced by the hon. Gentleman, but the tripartite system worked. I regret that it does not still operate in the United Kingdom. It was abolished and sacrificed on the altar of comprehensive education.

Mr. Lloyd: That is where the hon. Gentleman and I disagree, and he disagrees with a number of his colleagues. The tripartite system did not work. It failed far too many of our young people, and continues to do so in some parts of the country. In the spirit of the amendment, we are seeking to abolish the silly and arbitrary divisions that were built over the years between academic education and so-called non-academic education in vital areas of vocational education.

Mr. Pawsey: rose—

Mr. Lloyd: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I have hardly progressed further than my opening remarks because of interventions.
Vocational education is important not only to individual learning but to the nation's future. If we fail our young people by neglecting to provide them with an adequate vocational education, we shall have begun to fail the nation.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House have referred to the concept of the A-level as the "gold standard" of our system. Like other gold standards, it has become devalued in itself, and in itself it devalues other qualifications. As long as we have a Secretary of State who is committed to that gold standard, while paying lip service to the idea of equivalence between A-levels and other qualifications—national vocational qualifications in particular—and as long as the A-level examination continues to be paraded as the primary aim of our academic system, NVQs will be devalued. That is not acceptable in a modern society which is trying to promote the values of vocational education.
The NVQ system is important. It is no longer merely an experiment; it should be applauded in its own right, as a valuable stepping stone. Of course, if we are to transcend both the present NVQ system and the present A-level system, we must provide a qualifications base that is excellent in itself, allowing young people to aspire to the highest standards. We must maintain what Conservative Members believe exists in the A-level system—although I doubt that it does. We must also ensure that all young people can aspire to the same high level of attainment. If we do not do that, we shall fail the majority through our pursuit of the vacuous view that the minority—the academic elite—are more important than all the rest.

Mr. John Bowis: Surely A-levels and NVQs are not incompatible. We have encouraged students to take a couple of A-levels and some AS-levels to broaden the base of their education. There is no reason why the same should not apply to NVQs. Heads and class teachers in a number of schools are now encouraging pupils not to go for the traditional three A-levels—or even for four or five, in the case of high fliers—but to spread their education in a way that I think we would all favour. We need first to give such an educational spread the blessing

and imprimatur of Government and Parliament, and then to educate employers and higher education establishments so that they accept such qualifications.

Mr. Lloyd: I sympathise with the hon. Gentleman's objectives, but I am not sure that such methods would achieve the result that he wants. The AS-level system has not been a tremendous success; it has not been adopted in many areas, and is still viewed with suspicion—or, at any rate, is seen as less than relevant.
I doubt whether it is feasible to combine the A-level system—which is a specialising and, in my opinion, very narrowing system—with the NVQ system, which is supposedly intended to create a broad educational plateau. Such a combination would be fraught with difficulties. I am not at all happy about the aim of the A-level system.
One of my children is now faced with a choice of the subjects that she will study next year if she is able to continue in education after GCSEs. She is being forced fairly young to reject a good many options. What matters is not which subjects she chooses to take, but the subjects that she must drop. The A-level syllabus is forcing her to narrow her educational opportunities while still relatively young: in that regard, the system is fundamentally flawed.
It is ridiculous to claim that we are trying to produce 18-year-old specialists. For instance, three language A-levels do not constitute a sufficient qualification to allow a young person to work as a linguist, although they may be an acceptable qualification for those wishing to read for a language degree. There is almost no merit in the idea of trying to achieve such a degree of specialisation at that age: indeed, it has been rejected by a good many countries, in which it is regarded as a very silly way of trying to educate young people. At present, the necessary educational breadth does not exist.
5.45 pm
My hon. Friend the Member for Hemsworth (Mr. Enright) suggested the introduction of an international baccalaureate—a broadly based and challenging qualification that could raise all young people's aspirations. I think that that suggestion is along the right lines: it would allow the blending of courses and interests recommended by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). If that is indeed the hon. Gentleman's intention, we are on common ground; but the present arrangement, in which an elitist academic A-level system exists alongside a non-elitist, devalued system for those who pursue a vocational line, is far from helpful.
The Secretary of State introduced some semantic confusion by describing the key stage 3 English testing as a means of resolving the problems of illiteracy. Yesterday, at Question Time, he mentioned a report according to which up to a third of young people leaving school at 16 and going on to further education colleages need remedial help in understanding English—after 14 years of Conservative government. The very fact that the Secretary of State chose to highlight that finding is an indictment of both the right hon. Gentleman and his predecessors; but he went on to say that the testing involved in key stage 3 would resolve the problems, which is a sign of the educational illiteracy of Ministers who are charged with looking after young people's education.
It is clear that the whole key stage 3 debacle has been driven by an ideological approach to education. The


Secretary of State has decided that he wants to take on and beat the teaching profession for ideological reasons, rather than being prepared to listen to the arguments of those involved directly with pupils and, in his search for consensus, to establish a broader base for the education of both the under-16s and the over-16s.
I agree with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster): if we are to bring about the revolution that education needs, we must begin to seek consensus in earnest. A consensual approach must be adopted not only by the Opposition parties—whose opinion is shared by the overwhelming majority in educational circles—but by the Government. We must seek to break down the artificial barriers that fail so many young people, and begin to replace them with the methods and mechanisms that will ensure access to the best possible qualifications for all our young people.

Mr. Pawsey: Conservative Members are enjoying the hon. Gentleman's speech—although I shall not comment on its content.
The tripartite system we exported to Germany actually works. Everyone says so: people even say that the German economic miracle is a result of the country's education system. If it works so well there, why should we not import it back into the United Kingdom, and make it work here?

Mr. Lloyd: There is a simple answer to that. The Germans do not make the mistake of devaluing certain forms of educational achievement.

Mr. Pawsey: Why should we do so?

Mr. Lloyd: As long as we retain a system that reifies such a devaluation—a system that is hierarchical from beginning to end—those who have failed at the various stages involved in that system will inevitably be regarded as failures, both by themselves and by society generally. We must get away from that approach. We must introduce the concept of comprehensive education not only in the institutional sense but in the broadest sense. We must provide access to education for all young people.
The German experience is especially interesting. Of course we should begin to value technological education. We are—perhaps I should say, we were—a technological nation, but we devalue, for example, the engineer. It is a matter of record that engineers leaving our universities are not offered the same rates of pay or opportunities as others. Not many engineers make their way into the board rooms of industry—

Mr. Jamieson: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Lloyd: May I finish this point? A liberal education is a perfectly reasonable form of education and fits people for many things in life, but those who train as engineers should also be able to make their way into the boardrooms.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) said that we should return to the tripartite system. If there is supposed to be pressure for a return to that system, with testing at 11 and the reintroduction of secondary moderns, why are parents not calling for the return of selection?
It is a pity that the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) is not here, because he could recount the experience of 1984, when a Tory council tried to reintroduce the 11-plus, which caused a massive protest

from Tory voters in the borough. They strongly resisted the return of the 11-plus, because they have an excellent comprehensive system which they do not wish to destroy.

Mr. Lloyd: My hon. Friend makes an important point. When a return to selective education has been suggested, it has usually been resisted not only by parents but often by Conservative councillors, who are not persuaded of the benefit of such a change. I speak with some feeling about selective education because, as I said, the area in which I live retains that system. The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth has a similar experience. It is a bad system, which fails far too many people.
During our debates, it has been constructive to note that the schools which have so far sought to opt out have not been the comprehensive schools in the other boroughs of Greater Manchester but the secondary moderns in Trafford. They are so dissatisfied with their second-rate treatment from the Conservative local education authority that they want to get out of its control. One school in particular, not in my constituency, has successfully balloted to opt out on the specific propsectus that it will seek a change of status from secondary modern to comprehensive. It believes that it is the only way it can attract young people in sufficient numbers to remain viable in competition with other schools in the area.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) said, there is no demand across the board for a tripartite system. I do not want to put words into the mouths of Conservative Members, but I did not detect a massive groundswell among them in favour of its return. It is antithetical to what the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) was saying. He may wish to say that institutions are prepared to accept that system, but it was not in keeping with the spirit of his remarks. Having mentioned him, I shall give way.

Mr. Bowis: We are seeking common ground, but uniformity is not necessarily the best way forward. If the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) would give a little on the uniformity of the structure of the school system, he would do much more for education. We seek a great variety of schools—city technology colleges, grant-maintained schools, magnet schools, single-sex schools, co-educational schools, Church schools, nondenominational schools and others. His party tends to want one type of school for all children; he could give way on that uniformity.
My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) made an excellent speech, suggesting that it is perhaps time to examine the national curriculum to ascertain where we should be clawing it in to allow a greater range of teaching over and above the core. That would lead to the measures on which this debate is centred.

Mr. Lloyd: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will forgive me if I say that that is paramount nonsense. We do not want to institutionalise the divisions between schools to prevent access to those who are perfectly capable and should be allowed to benefit from the opportunities available. Of course there should be variety in our education system, but variety driven by a coalition of parents, the young people themselves, teachers, the professionals to whom we entrust the future of our young people and even, dare I say it, institutions such as local education authorities. Those authorities can structure


careers services, which can give the quality advice, which youngsters are clearly not getting at the moment. We should be tackling the failure rates in, for example, further education, as set out in a recent Audit Commission report.
Of course there should be variety within our system. Individual children have different aptitudes and orientations and we should welcome that fact and glory in that diversity. However, the way in which we respond to that diversity should not, as so often happens now, exclude children from poor backgrounds or those from the inner cities and ethnic minorities. They do not have access to the opportunities to which they are entitled.

Mr. Don Foster: The hon. Gentleman made an important point when he chided the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) about the desire to institutionalise divisions. Is not the debate about trying to break down those divisions? Does the hon. Gentleman agree that there is a belief that only academic work is important? [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Conservative Members are saying no. I accept that some have been involved in the development of vocational education, but it is still not given parity of esteem, which is the crucial issue. It is extremely important that even children who are following highly academic courses have an opportunity to be involved in vocational education, which is why the amendment is vital. We want parity of esteem between academic and vocational work, instead of the current division in attitude among Conservative Members between vocational and academic qualifications.

Mr. Lloyd: The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) is absolutely right. Such parity of esteem would apply in our better public schools, because the idea that expensive public schools would fail their pupils by denying them access to vocational education is ridiculous. Parents would not tolerate that or be prepared to fork out money for such schooling.
We are prepared to seek consensus with those who genuinely want to break down the divisions and who want the parity of esteem which exists in Germany, which the hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth mentioned. However, we cannot seek consensus with those whose actions, if not their motivation, merely institutionalise the divisions and deny some young people access to vocational and non-vocational education in our publicly funded system. That is the reality of education today, which is why it is so important that the amendment is accepted—and why the Labour party will vote for it.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: I am grateful for the opportunity to say a brief word about the amendment. I have been interested to listen to the debate so far, and occasionally I have almost experienced a meeting of minds with the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). At the beginning of his speech he talked about the importance of emphasising vocational education. There I totally agree with him, and with the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who also stressed the importance of vocational education when he moved the amendment. I suspect that my hon. Friends accept those remarks.
Despite the Manchester connection, however, the meeting of minds does not usually last long. The hon. Member for Stretford suffers from a failure of imagination. Like so many Opposition Members, he seems

unable to visualise any kind of education other than comprehensive education supervised by local education authorities. As I have said before, there are many good comprehensive schools and local education authorities—but the Opposition suffer from a failure of imagination, in that they are always coming back to defend the status quo. They refuse to accept the excellent points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) and others. It is that failure of imagination that causes the Opposition problems.
6 pm
I hope that at least we agree on the funadamental importance of vocational education, as emphasised by the hon. Members for Stretford and for Bath. I, too, want to emphasise its importance, but I differ with the hon. Member for Bath and feel that his amendment is wrong. He gave the game away himself when he argued at some length that, in spite of recent Government moves to simplify and compress the national curriculum, it still covered too wide a range of subjects and activities. Indeed it does—so I support my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth in his desire to move further in the opposite direction from that suggested by the hon. Member for Bath. As I understand it, the hon. Gentleman's idea—I shall give way to him in a moment if I am misunderstanding it—is an ever-expanding national curriculum designed to achieve some kind of hypothetical parity of esteem.
I am highly suspicious when people start talking about parity of esteem in education. Such phrases are traps into which politicians fall. They are totally meaningless.

Mr. Foster: rose—

Mr. Thompson: If I am misunderstanding the hon. Gentleman, I will give way to him and then respond to what he says.

Mr. Foster: If the hon. Gentleman has difficulty understanding phrases such as "parity of esteem" he should talk to many of his hon. Friends who have used that phrase in speeches. It has also been used in many documents issued by the Conservative party. The concept of parity of esteem is well accepted by the vast majority of people in the education world. It makes us sad that the hon. Gentleman sees vocational education as merely another little subject by itself to be squeezed into the already jam-packed national curriculum. The simple point that I was making to the hon. Gentleman and to his right hon. and hon. Friends is that the national curriculum is already massively overloaded and allows none of that diversity in individual schools that Conservative Members want to see. It is perfectly possible significantly to diminish—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is a very long intervention.

Mr. Thompson: I think that I have picked up the general drift of the hon. Gentleman's intervention, without his pursuing it further. He has—possibly deliberately—misunderstood what I said about parity of esteem. Whenever my hon. Friends refer to parity of esteem I always agree with them, because they are using the phrase correctly.
However, the hon. Gentleman has again said something with which I agree—that the national curriculum is overloaded. Some problems have arisen, and the debate between the Government, the local authorities and the schools is valid. We should move further towards slimming down the national curriculum—the Government have already made moves in that direction, and some of my hon. Friends have referred to it. Speaking for myself, and from my experience as a teacher—

Mr. Tony Lloyd: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Thompson: May I finish my point first? I hope that we shall have a meeting of minds in a moment.
We should be moving in the direction of basic standards, not only those required for further progress in academic education but also as they are required for movement into vocational education. The hon. Member for Bath, with the best of intentions, has introduced a red herring into the debate, and his amendment is ill advised.

Mr. Lloyd: rose—

Mr. Thompson: Despite the pressure of time, I shall give way to the hon. Member for Stretford, because I referred to his speech.

Mr. Lloyd: The debate may be more important than people imagine, because there is clearly much more of a meeting of minds than might have been expected. Of course we agree with the concept of basic standards, especially when the hon. Gentleman explains that basic standards are not seen in terms of academic subjects alone —that is most important. May I put him on the spot and ask him a question? He is right to talk about the need to slim down the national curriculum. Can he tell us what movement the Government have made in that direction? We have yet to detect any. That is not a flippant question; it is serious. If we genuinely thought that the Government were moving, that would be a matter for rejoicing.

Mr. Thompson: I have detected certain signs of movement from the Government—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will be able to elaborate on that when he responds to the debate. [Interruption.] There is a meeting of minds here, because I would press my hon. Friend to go even further in slimming down the national curriculum—so let us not have a disagreement across the Floor of the House about that. I suspect that if he did so we could move away from some of the stresses and strains in schools of which hon. Members on both sides of the House are aware.

Mr. Win Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Thompson: No, pressure of time prevents me from giving way now.
The amendment of the hon. Member for Bath, although moved with the best of intentions, is ill advised. If there is basic education in elementary mathematics, that will lead pupils on not only to academic progress in mathematics but to technical and vocational education. If there is basic education in English, spelling and grammar —I use those terms proudly—that will help pupils to move on into clerical activity, secretarial work and more advanced forms of management training. Basic language skills, too, will be of tremendous value when pupils move on to vocational training of one sort or another.
There is a meeting of minds in the House and elsewhere on the desperate importance to the nation of encouraging more and better vocational education—I know that the Government seek to do that in all sorts of ways which are not the subject of the debate. Nevertheless, I shall finish now—I wanted to be brief—by saying that the amendment is ill advised and that I hope that my hon. Friends will support the Government and reject it.

Mr. Stephen Byers: I had not intended to speak in the debate, but so many important points have been raised by hon. Members on both sides of the House that I decided to make a brief contribution to a useful discussion on an important issue.
One of the reasons why our education system has been seen as a failure compared with those of other countries is the division between vocational and academic education. All hon. Members want that division to be removed, and in the past few years steps have been taken in an effort to remove it. It was initiatives by local education authorities which began the process. The Government seized upon the idea and introduced a technical and vocational education initiative in the mid-1980s, making funds available for local authorities to bid for to provide vocational courses in secondary schools. Many authorities had already begun that process, but they welcomed the prospect of Government financial support to carry it forward.
It is interesting to compare our approach with that of Germany, for example, where the academic/vocational divide is not seen in terms of academic education being reserved for the most able pupils while vocational education is for the less able. That does not happen in Germany, where the most able children feel free to embark on vocational courses. There is often a real mix between the academic and the vocational, and one side is not seen as having greater priority than the other. That is one reason why Opposition Members would like to look closely at the German system so that we can perhaps develop in that direction.

Mr. George Walden: I was a little puzzled when the hon. Gentleman began to elaborate on the division in education in Britain and then praised Germany. In Germany there are separate schools for academic and technological education. I was interested in the drift of the hon. Gentleman's argument because one of the major problems in Britain which is almost unique in Europe is our adhesion—in my view, misguided—to comprehensive education. I suspect that, to achieve the best technological and academic education opportunities, we shall have to follow the German model and abandon comprehensive education.

Mr. Byers: That is an important subject which I should like to discuss, but I want to give the Minister sufficient time to reply to the debate. I am mindful that the Minister wishes to speak for a particular length of time.
I was seeking to point out that, although in Britain the academic is seen to be the preserve of the most able while the less able follow vocational training, in Germany that division does not exist. The most able students often follow vocational training. Comprehensive education can include academic and vocational training and the most able and the less able students can choose either of those options.
We have to take a radical approach to A-levels, which totally dominate our education system and all too often


are the dead hand on curriculum development. One reason for our failure has been the gold standard of the A-level. The Government alone stand by the A-level. Everyone else is saying that it has to be changed.
We also need to address the structure of Government. It is not appropriate to have a Department for Education but for training to be the responsibility of the Department of Employment. The time has come to have one Department responsible for education and training. That would be a positive lead at the highest level to demonstrate that there is no division between education and training and that they should be treated as of equal value. I welcome the recent appointment of a permanent secretary at the Department for Education whose background is mostly in the Department of Employment; that may herald a drift towards bringing training into the remit and responsibilities of the Department for Education.
I wanted to make a short speech and I am sure that we shall listen with interest to the Minister's reply.

Mr. Boswell: There are occasions when despite all the sound and fury there is an element of consensus in the House, and I have listened with interest to the debate. That is not to say that we agree on every point, but it has been possible to pick up certain strands of agreement.
To summarise, we heard characteristically trenchant and well-informed speeches from my hon. Friends the Members for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey) and for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson). We also heard a characteristically magisterial intervention of the kind that we have become used to expecting from my hon Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). We had a new entrant, a former old lag of our Department, if I may put it that way, in the shape of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) who also made a powerful intervention. They will forgive me if I do not speak at great length on their speeches and direct my remarks—though not confine them—to those made by the Opposition.
Listening to the speech of the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who moved the amendment that I shall invite my colleagues to resist, it occurred to me that he speaks with a measure of dogged reasonableness and is always anxious to include and please. One might say, in the motto of a well-known Sunday newspaper, that in his prescription all human life is there. Not only is he conscious of the heavy load already in the national curriculum; he wants to add to it and, indeed, strip away from it in order to add to it. I cannot help feeling that in Committee and on Report he has functioned as the agony aunt of the Committee—what one might term at the least charitable, which I am not often, as "Banal of Bath".
6.15 pm
We listened to a long and characteristically passionate oration from the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd). For one awful moment I thought that, in view of the number of propositions he was setting up, I would have to encapsulate him as, "Aunt Sally from Stretford" because he was talking about "ghettoisation" and ideological agendas. He dragged in the entirely spurious suggestion that the controversy about key stage 3 testing was regarded as ideological on our side, which I emphatically deny. That did not add to his argument; nevertheless, I listened to the substance of what he said.
I turn to a point that was rehearsed across both sides of the House and fairly extensively in Committee. I noted the concern of hon. Members on both sides of the House about the heavy load in the existing national curriculum and their inference that it might need to be lightened. The hon. Member for Stretford should acknowledge that we have already taken steps to introduce more flexibility at key stage 4 and to reduce some of the requirements to accommodate particular circumstances.
We are debating the new School Curriculum and Assessment Authority and its role, which we consider most important. If there are any doubts, the national curriculum is not set in stone. That is not immediately to be interpreted as suggesting that it is to be totally and radically changed every so often at whim, but the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority will be charged with the duty of analysing it, reviewing the subject heads and seeing whether it can be improved. That will be a continuing process of rolling review which I am sure all hon. Members will welcome.
I now turn to an issue where there is particular difference between the hon. Member for Stretford and myself. My hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth struck back strongly on the attitude to A-levels. If it is necessary for people to come out, as it were, I was obliged to specialise at the age of 14; I regretted it at the time and continued to regret it, and to some extent have found ways of rowing back. That was not the normal structure of A-levels and people would not be driven to that course until the age of 16, but I regard it as over-narrow and we are addressing it within the national curriculum.
The hon. Gentleman was rather uncharitable about AS-levels. There were more than 50,000 entries for AS-levels last year. Indeed, one of them was one of my daughters, who received a very acceptable grade. One fifth of all A-level entrants take an AS-level as part of their entry. It is mistaken to set up an Aunt Sally suggesting that we are not interested in qualifications outside A-levels. It is important to have a standard to which others can be related. I do not accept that it devalues the system of vocational qualifications. The hon. Gentleman did not answer the question. "Devalued from what?" as though we had set a vocational standard and then succeeded in rubbishing it.

Mr. Walden: It seems to me that there is a certain amount of hypocrisy, not in my hon. Friend the Minister's position, but in that of others regarding A-levels. My view is that there is a wide intellectual consensus, which I share, on the need to broaden A-levels, perhaps on the French model. I am strongly against broadening A-levels at this juncture because I have no confidence in the ability of the education industry to do that without taking the opportunity of lowering expectations, yet again, across the board. I have no confidence in its ability to produce the high, broad expectations which exist in the baccalaureat in France.

Mr. Boswell: I have noted my hon. Friend's remarks carefully. I shall now explain to the House how we see ourselves being able to set up alternative measures and alternative routes.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: The intervention by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) is important because it encapsulates some of the attitudes shown in this debate.


Does the Minister agree with what the hon. Gentleman has said? It is important for the Minister to place on record his agreement or disagreement with the hon. Gentleman's proposition.

Mr. Boswell: I am slightly surprised that the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer multiple or even dual-choice questions. However, I will give him an answer. The point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham is that any change in A-levels, if not carefully considered and properly argued through, would not necessarily maintain standards. We have already opened up the possibility of acceptable, more narrowly focused studies through AS-levels.
On the narrow point of the amendment, which deals with technical education in schools—

Mr. Foster: Vocational education.

Mr. Boswell: It was a slip of the tongue. The hon. Gentleman's intervention enables me to make the remark that I had intended to make. Despite his understandable enthusiasm for vocational education, the amendment does not mention the word "technology". I do not know whether technology is included in vocational education, as the hon. Gentleman sees it.

Mr. Don Foster: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that technology is currently included in the national curriculum.

Mr. Boswell: I am most certainly aware of that precise point. I do not see how, if the hon. Gentleman seeks to slim down the curriculum for the sake of vocational concerns and to safeguard the existing technology commitment, he would be able to deal with, for example, modern foreign languages. If the hon. Gentleman is simply saying that the national curriculum, as delivered up to key stage 4, should require a broad education which moves towards acceptable pathways to vocation and training in the future, and if that curriculum is to include science, technology, mathematics and other subjects which may be said to have a vocational handle—just as communications skills and English have a vocational handle—I would not disagree much with him. However, we are not convinced of the need to prescribe vocational education as such as part of the national curriculum.
I repeat to the House that the Education Reform Act 1988 already requires that the curriculum of a school should prepare pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life. The hon. Member for Bath rightly and fairly referred to the technical and vocational education initiative and to our reform of the Business and Technician Education Council, a subject with which I shall deal later.
I remind the hon. Gentleman that the curriculum is intended to cover the range of knowledge, skills and understanding commonly accepted as necessary for a broad and balanced curriculum for the individual pupil, as set out in the 10 foundation subjects. By the age of 14—there is no dissent on this point—it is entirely appropriate for young people to gain some experience of prevocational education. I do not want the House to confuse that with strictly vocational education. In most cases, one would anticipate that vocational education or the further stage of education would take place in the institutions for which I am responsible, after the compulsory school age

and in some other provision. We do not need to confine the provision to being a strictly vocational education at that stage.
As we move into the 14 to 16-year-old group and to key stage 4, we build on the sense of anticipation of the future—the motivation to move into the world of work. That is why we introduced the element of flexibility to which I referred. I shall come back to that point because it is a strong part of our concern and of my personal commitment.
I shall now deal with the national curriculum because hon. Members have referred to the attainments of pupils in terms of basic skills and to the failure of too many to achieve them during the period of compulsory schooling. Hon. Members have referred to the fact that many people now in further education have to have remedial education. I am not satisfied with that and I am determined that we should improve on that position, although it is by no means an easy task and it requires a variety of approaches.
We need the national curriculum to start the process. As I said to the hon. Member for Bath, the national curriculum provides for science and technology from year one right through to year 11. That is not mirrored in the curriculum of any other European state of which 1 am aware. The big process, which we are now taking forward with the School Curriculum and Assessment Authority, has been a major success. Five years ago, it was barely an aspiration. Many people said that it could not be done or that it would not be successful.
We are now teaching some science and technology to every child between the ages of five and nine, and to every child between 11 and 14 in maintained schools. We shall carry the process through to ensure that all pupils between 15 and 16 in those schools receive a balanced education relevant to future needs and set in a clear overall framework. We want to raise teachers' and parents' expectations for children.
I shall now deal with the question of what happens after compulsory schooling, which is an area of direct and day-to-day concern to me, and I shall deal with the issue of parity of esteem. With the greatest respect to the House, the parity of esteem that we do not seek is that to which we give lip service here. The real parity of esteem is that perceived by employers, by admissions tutors and by admissions officers in higher education. They are the people who are making judgments on the basis of what is offered to them.
There are already encouraging signs of movement towards non-traditional entry routes and towards a more flexible approach, for example, to mature students. I give one example: already 20 per cent. of students entering higher education for engineering degrees have had non-traditional pathways into that education. There is growing interaction between higher national diplomas and people moving to degree qualifications.
As has been said, we are establishing a structure of vocational qualifications to parallel A-levels and to provide two alternative routes. The national vocational qualifications that are mainly talked about partake of specific vocational skills. There are also general NVQs, which are being piloted and developed. I have looked at. the GNVQ curriculum for business studies and I have compared it with the typical A-level in business studies. It is an attractive alternative, although my decision is not what matters: what is important is what is taught and what is available to employers to consider. I remind the House


that GNVQ at level 3 is to be equivalent to two A-levels, which is an important point of standard. It is not the qualification but the level at which it is taken which is critical.
That approach is to be accompanied by a far more hands-on and direct effort to give proper career advice to those who are about to leave their compulsory school years as to whether they should stay within the schools sector or move elsewhere. There is no false antithesis here. Some of the biggest deliverers of A-levels, which are rubbished by some hon. Members including the hon. Member for Stretford, are the further education colleges, so they have an interest in the delivery of, and proper use for, the A-level system.
Alongside that, we are offering for the first time—it is a breakthrough which will contribute to the objective that we all seek of building up the effective parity of the scheme—a coherent structure of vocational qualifications. It is a comprehensive structure, if I may use that phrase, in that it covers all the major curriculum areas. It is also a comprehensible area in the sense that young people wanting to move on towards the world of work and to get acceptable vocational qualifications, with a general educational element and some core skills that they can use in their future careers, will have something to go for. It is not a question of devaluing, removing or cheapening A-level or reducing standards, but—

It being half past Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 245, Noes 275.

Division No. 169]
[6.30 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cann, Jamie


Ainger, Nick
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Chisholm, Malcolm


Allen, Graham
Clapham, Michael


Alton, David
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Armstrong, Hilary
Clelland, David


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Ashton, Joe
Coffey, Ann


Austin-Walker, John
Cohen, Harry


Barnes, Harry
Connarty, Michael


Barron, Kevin
Corbett, Robin


Battle, John
Corbyn, Jeremy


Bayley, Hugh
Cousins, Jim


Bell, Stuart
Cryer, Bob


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Benton, Joe
Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr John


Bermingham, Gerald
Dafis, Cynog


Berry, Dr. Roger
Dalyell, Tam


Betts, Clive
Darling, Alistair


Blair, Tony
Davidson, Ian


Blunkett, David
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Boateng, Paul
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Boyce, Jimmy
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Boyes, Roland
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Bradley, Keith
Denham, John


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Dewar, Donald


Burden, Richard
Dixon, Don


Byers, Stephen
Donohoe, Brian H.


Caborn, Richard
Dowd, Jim


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Eagle, Ms Angela





Eastham, Ken
Madden, Max


Enright, Derek
Mahon, Alice


Etherington, Bill
Mallon, Seamus


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Mandelson, Peter


Fatchett, Derek
Marek, Dr John


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Fisher, Mark
Martlew, Eric


Flynn, Paul
Maxton, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Meacher, Michael


Foster, Don (Bath)
Meale, Alan


Foulkes, George
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Fraser, John
Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)


Fyfe, Maria
Milburn, Alan


Gapes, Mike
Miller, Andrew


Garrett, John
Moonie, Dr Lewis


George, Bruce
Morgan, Rhodri


Gerrard, Neil
Morley, Elliot


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)


Godsiff, Roger
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Golding, Mrs Llin
Mowlam, Marjorie


Gordon, Mildred
Mudie, George


Graham, Thomas
Mullin, Chris


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Murphy, Paul


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
O'Brien, William (Normanton)


Grocott, Bruce
O'Hara, Edward


Gunnell, John
Olner, William


Hain, Peter
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Hall, Mike
Parry, Robert


Hanson, David
Pendry, Tom


Harvey, Nick
Pickthall, Colin


Henderson, Doug
Pike, Peter L.


Heppell, John
Pope, Greg


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Hinchliffe, David
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoey, Kate
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Prescott, John


Hood, Jimmy
Primarolo, Dawn


Hoon, Geoffrey
Purchase, Ken


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Randall, Stuart


Hoyle, Doug
Raynsford, Nick


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Redmond, Martin


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Reid, Dr John


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Hutton, John
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Illsley, Eric
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Ingram, Adam
Rogers, Allan


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Rooker, Jeff


Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)
Rooney, Terry


Jamieson, David
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Janner, Greville
Ruddock, Joan


Johnston, Sir Russell
Sedgemore, Brian


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Mon)
Sheerman, Barry


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Short, Clare


Jowell, Tessa
Simpson, Alan


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Skinner, Dennis


Keen, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Khabra, Piara S.
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Kilfoyle, Peter
Snape, Peter


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Soley, Clive


Leighton, Ron
Spearing, Nigel


Lewis, Terry
Spellar, John


Litherland, Robert
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Loyden, Eddie
Steinberg, Gerry


Lynne, Ms Liz
Stott, Roger


McAllion, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McAvoy, Thomas
Straw, Jack


McCartney, Ian
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Macdonald, Calum
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


McFall, John
Tipping, Paddy


McKelvey, William
Turner, Dennis


Maclennan, Robert
Tyler, Paul


McMaster, Gordon
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


McWilliam, John
Wallace, James






 Walley, Joan
Worthington, Tony


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)
Wray, Jimmy


Wicks, Malcolm
Wright, Dr Tony


Wigley, Dafydd
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)



Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Wilson, Brian
Mr. Archy Kirkwood and


Winnick, David
Mr. Simon Hughes.


Wise, Audrey



NOES


Adley, Robert
Duncan, Alan


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Duncan-Smith, Iain


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Dunn, Bob


Amess, David
Durant, Sir Anthony


Ancram, Michael
Dykes, Hugh


Arbuthnot, James
Eggar, Tim


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Elletson, Harold


Ashby, David
Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Aspinwall, Jack
Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Evans, Roger (Monmouth)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Evennett, David


Baldry, Tony
Faber, David


Banks, Matthew (Southport)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas


Batiste, Spencer
Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)


Bellingham, Henry
Fishburn, Dudley


Bendall, Vivian
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bitten, Rt Hon John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Booth, Hartley
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Boswell, Tim
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
French, Douglas


Bowden, Andrew
Fry, Peter


Bowis, John
Gale, Roger


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gallic, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gardiner, Sir George


Brazier, Julian
Garnier, Edward


Bright, Graham
Gillan, Cheryl


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Gorst, John


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Burns, Simon
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Burt, Alistair
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Butcher, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Butler, Peter
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Butterfill, John
Hague, William


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hampson, Dr Keith


Carrington, Matthew
Hannam, Sir John


Carttiss, Michael
Hargreaves, Andrew


Cash, William
Harris, David


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Haselhurst, Alan


Chapman, Sydney
Hawksley, Warren


Clappison, James
Hayes, Jerry


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heald, Oliver


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hendry, Charles


Coe, Sebastian
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Congdon, David
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Conway, Derek
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Horam, John


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Couchman, James
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Cran, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Hunter, Andrew


Day, Stephen
Jack, Michael


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Devlin, Tim
Jenkin, Bernard


Dickens, Geoffrey
Jesse l, Toby


Dorrell, Stephen
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Dover, Den
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)





Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine
Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn


Key, Robert
Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)


Kilfedder, Sir James
Robinson, Mark (Somerton)


Kirkhope, Timothy
Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)


Knapman, Roger
Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)


Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)
Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Sackville, Tom


Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)
Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim


Knox, David
Shaw, David (Dover)


Kynoch, George (Kincardine)
Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)


Lait, Mrs Jacqui
Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian


Lang, Rt Hon Ian
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Leigh, Edward
Shersby, Michael


Lennox-Boyd, Mark
Sims, Roger


Lidington, David
Skeet, Sir Trevor


Lilley, Rt Hon Peter
Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Lord, Michael
Soames, Nicholas


Luff, Peter
Spencer, Sir Derek


Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Spicer, Sir James (W Dorset)


MacKay, Andrew
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Maclean, David
Spink, Dr Robert


McLoughlin, Patrick
Spring, Richard


McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick
Sproat, Iain


Madel, David
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Maitland, Lady Olga
Steen, Anthony


Major, Rt Hon John
Stephen, Michael


Malone, Gerald
Stern, Michael


Mans, Keith
Stewart, Allan


Marlow, Tony
Streeter, Gary


Marshall, John (Hendon S)
Sumberg, David


Martin, David (Portsmouth S)
Sweeney, Walter


Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Sykes, John


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Merchant, Piers
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Milligan, Stephen
Thomason, Roy


Mills, Iain
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Thurnham, Peter


Monro, Sir Hector
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Moss, Malcolm
Tracey, Richard


Needham, Richard
Tredinnick, David


Nelson, Anthony
Trend, Michael


Neubert, Sir Michael
Twinn, Dr Ian


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Nicholls, Patrick
Viggers, Peter


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Walden, George


Norris, Steve
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Waller, Gary


Ottaway, Richard
Ward, John


Page, Richard
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Paice, James
Waterson, Nigel


Patnick, Irvine
Wells, Bowen


Patten, Rt Hon John
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Whitney, Ray


Pawsey, James
Whittingdale, John


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Widdecombe, Ann


Pickles, Eric
Wilkinson, John


Porter, David (Waveney)
Willetts, David


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Wilshire, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Wolfson, Mark


Rathbone, Tim
Yeo, Tim


Redwood, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Renton, Rt Hon Tim



Richards, Rod
Tellers for the Noes:


Riddick, Graham
Mr. David Lightbown and


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Mr. Timothy Wood.


Robathan, Andrew

Question accordingly negatived.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: then put the Questions on amendments moved by a member of the Government, to the end of clause 256.

Clause 242

POWER TO MAKE AND DEAL WITH SUCH PROPOSALS IN THE CASE OF SCHOOLS ELIGIBLE FOR GRANT-MAINTAINED STATUS

Amendments made: No. 52, in page 145, line 38, leave out first 'the' and insert 'any'.

No. 53, in page 145, line 41, leave out 'both sets of proposals' and insert
'the proposals under section 12 or 13 of that Act or section 241 of this Act and the proposals for acquisition of grant-maintained status'.

No. 54, in page 146, line 13, leave out '(3)' and insert '(5)'.—[ Mr. Boswell.]

Clause 257

PROVISION OF GOODS AND SERVICES BY LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES

Mr. Cynog Dafis: I beg to move amendment No. 122, in page 153, line 12, after '(2)', insert
'where an order relates to a local education authority in England.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): With this it will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 121, in page 153, line 14, at end insert—
'(2A) Where an order relates to a local education authority in Wales, the area specified in the Order may extend to the whole of Wales.'.

No. 120, in page 153, leave out lines 21 to 23.

No. 198, in page 153, line 25, at end add—
'(6) Any order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.'.

Mr. Dafis: I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to the amendments in this small but significant group.
The issues with which the clause and the amendments are concerned have been debated at length already, in Committee and last night. The fact that this is a matter of great concern was evident from Conservative Members' eloquent speeches last night about the provision of the music service, to which I shall return.
Amendment No. 120 would remove the two-year limit after which LEAs would not be allowed to sell services to schools in other LEA areas or to grant-maintained schools. Amendments No. 122 and 121, which I drafted myself, would enable services to be sold by any LEA to the schools of any other LEA in Wales and to grant-maintained schools in any other part of Wales.
I emphasise that, if Opposition Members' only concern were to sabotage the grant-maintained movement, we should not have tabled amendment No. 120. The non-availability to grant-maintained schools of LEA services after two years is likely to act as a strong disincentive to schools to become grant maintained. The Under-Secretary of State for Schools confirmed that last night when he said:
If parents decide that relying on the continuance of LEA provision of the kind to which their school is accustomed is of paramount importance to them, perhaps that school is not the right sort to become grant maintained."—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 206.]
The hon. Gentleman actually admitted that the non-provision of services might be a disincentive to some

schools to become grant maintained. We are not being driven by ideology in this: we are not in the business of sabotaging the grant-maintained movement at this time.
It is worth mentioning the fact that only after a period of about two years will schools in Wales be going grant maintained at all, so in effect they will be unable to benefit from the services anyway. Opposition Members are driven not by ideology but by the wish to ensure that, if the grant-maintained sector grows and develops, the mixed system that will then exist should be able to work with the minimum amount of damage being done to pupils. That is our main concern.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Schools (Mr. Eric Forth): It is important that the ground rules should be clear. The restrictions will not even operate if only a few schools have become grant maintained. Only when a local education authority experienced a significant number of schools becoming grant maintained and exceeded its margin of capacity would the question even arise. The two-year period would start from that point, allowing a transitional period during which the appropriate adjustments could be made. It is important to understand that.

Mr. Dafis: I accept that and I shall come to the question of the margin of capacity in a moment.
I emphasise that amendment No. 120 does no more than propose that there should be a level playing field between the public and private sectors. If Conservative Members are saying that it is not possible to identify the true cost of services provided by LEAs—that has been suggested—and so ensure that there is a level playing field, they are saying, in effect, that they regard local authorities as perfidious and in the business of cheating. Some Conservative Members—not all—clearly believe that. The hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards) clearly regards LEAs and local authorities as essentially perfidious bodies. Conservative Members must take a dim view of the extent of human ingenuity if they do not believe that it is possible for human beings to devise a system whereby the true costs of providing services can be identified.
That is not the view of the Secretary of State for Wales. The White Paper on local government reorganisation in Wales states that local authorities in Wales will be encouraged, as a matter of good practice, to introduce an internal accounting framework for corporate and other services and to expose them to competition as soon as possible. Clearly, the Secretary of State believes that it is possible to develop an accounting procedure which makes it possible to identify the true costs of services provided by local education authorities and local government generally.
Under the Bill as drafted, LEA schools will have a choice as to where they obtain their services: they can get them from the LEA or from the private sector. Grant-maintained schools, however, will not have that choice. On the face of it, the Bill seems to discriminate against grant-maintained schools as much as it discriminates against LEA service providers. In that context, it is worth asking which principle is more important to the Government: the promotion of grant-maintained schools, or the discouragement of the public sector as providers?
Some people in the grant-maintained movement and in the semi-independent sector say that they cannot understand why the Government insist on the prohibition coming into operation after two years. I think that I understand what is behind the Government's thinking. If the LEA is prevented from supplying services to grant-maintained schools and if the grant-maintained sector grows, it will be increasingly difficult for the LEA to provide services for its own schools. The necessary economies of scale will not be available and schools will increasingly lack any reason to remain with the LEAs. That is probably the Government's strategy. Like God, the Conservatives move in a mysterious way their wonders to perform. It would be naive to imagine that they intend to leave the growth of the grant-maintained sector to parental choice and that they will not employ other measures in the background to facilitate and hasten their process. They are prepared, in pursuit of an ideological goal, to endanger services and the quality of children's education. It is difficult to imagine anything more irresponsible.
Last night the hon. Member for Staffordshire, South (Mr. Cormack), in an eloquent, moving and civilised speech, talked of his anxiety about the question of music provision. The hon. Gentleman was ably supported by the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis). In the case of those two hon. Gentlemen the term "honourable" seems appropriate. I should like to talk about music provision in my constituency and, in particular, about trading at the margins of capacity.
In Ceredigion we have a fine school orchestra, whose conductor is the music organiser for Dyfed. The orchestra has enjoyed considerable success on great occasions at the Royal Albert Hall. If, in the new county, which will be called Sir Aberteifi, there is one grant-maintained school, its pupils will presumably be able to join the orchestra. Presumably grant-maintained schools would pay the LEA fees as it would be within the capacity of the LEA to provide for its own schools. In other words, the provision would be within the margin of capacity. However, if more schools were to become grant-maintained, such provision in Ceredigion could be made only beyond the LEA's margin of capacity. Thus, grant-maintained pupils would not be able to take part in the orchestra. I think that my understanding is correct.
What would happen then? Would grant-maintained schools set about starting their own orchestra? It was surprising to hear the Minister talk last night about co-operative ventures. Perhaps the grant-maintained schools could organise a co-operative venture. Thus we would have two orchestras. It might be argued that competition would be created and that that would be a good thing. Competition between the two orchestras would drive down the fees charged for putting on concerts here and there. I am being facetious, of course, but I shall now be serious. Such a situation might very well mean the LEA's own orchestra becoming unviable.

Mr. Forth: I should like to deal with this point now lest it fail to be picked up later. I shall check the situation and provide confirmation, but I am pretty certain that the problem posed by the hon. Gentleman can be resolved under the Local Government Act 1972, which enables such services to be provided across county borders and across boundaries between the LEA and grant-maintained

sectors. I made this point in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) in Committee and on the Floor of the House.

Mr. Dafis: If that is true and if it applies to orchestras specifically, it is a comfort. None the less, there remains the argument that at a certain stage grant-maintained schools will be unable to obtain services from the local education authority as that would amount to trading beyond the margin of capacity.
I refer to other services in Wales—in particular, in my part of Wales—that will suffer similarly. I have mentioned those in Committee. The education authority has set up language centres—canolfannau iaith—where children undertake intensive courses in Welsh. After six or eight weeks they return to their own primary schools and receive part of their education through the medium of Welsh. The language centres are run by one or two specialist teachers, who have gained considerable expertise through periods of training. The centres are essential to enable schools to cope with the shifting linguistic circumstances in my part of the world.Families arrive from England and children enter school at various ages. Schools could not cope satisfactorily without such support.
Linked to this provision is the network of area teachers which we call athrawon bro. That service is partly funded by special grants from the Welsh Office which are very much appreciated. Some of the teachers are peripatetic. They visit various primary schools and teach Welsh as a second language, provide language enrichment lessons, and so on. The specialist teachers also train other teachers and develop teaching materials. The loss of such centres and of this network of teachers would have a disastrous effect on the provision that is necessary to deal with the complexities of the bilingual situation in my part of the world and to meet the opportunities.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: It is difficult to follow the logic of the hon. Gentleman's argument. He seems to believe that if something is not provided by the local education authority it should be lost. That is similar to the obsessive and purblind ideological approach of the Labour party. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that many grant-maintained schools are taking part in co-operative exercises? In that way they can purchase services from bodies in the independent trust sector, often in conjunction with local education authorities in cases such as those to which the hon. Gentleman refers. Music and language services can be obtained in that way. The Labour party has talked about how pleased it is to see the Clinton administration in power. Well, that administration has a bible called "Reinventing Government", which describes governments not as providers but as facilitators. The hon. Gentleman is not a member of the Labour party, but he may have learnt from that approach.

Mr. Dafis: I do not question the possibility of having trusts, set up by groups of schools, which could organise alternative provision. However, alternative provision might not emerge.We have a very efficient system already. The scenario put forward by the hon. Gentleman would lead to duplication and would make it more difficult for the local education authority to continue to provide a service to its own schools, as it would have to carry the same overheads with reduced provision. It would certainly create a more difficult and complex situation.

Mr. Rod Richards: Is the hon. Gentleman seriously telling the House that the ethos of Welsh schools will disappear under the grant-maintained system? If he is, he does not seem to have a high regard for the demand for Welsh education and things Welsh in his new county of Sir Aberteifi.

7 pm

Mr. Dafis: That is an extraordinary intervention. Obviously, the hon. Gentleman was not listening to me. I was not talking about Welsh schools: I was talking about special language centres that are set up by local education authorities to service schools which are designated Welsh medium schools and those which are not so designated.
The provision of special language services would be destabilised and made more difficult. There might be duplication and the services might not be available at anything like the present level. I have every faith in the demand for Welsh medium education, but I am concerned about the provision of services and the ability to cope with the varying linguistic situations in west Wales. There is a great danger that the provision of services will suffer as a consequence of the Government's proposals and their refusal to allow local education authorities to continue to sell services to grant-maintained schools.
We have heard more than once about the effect of the Bill on outdoor pursuit centres. I will not pursue that matter in detail—perhaps other hon. Members would like to mention it—but it is a significant element. I should mention in passing that outdoor pursuit centres in Wales that are owned by local education authorities in England provide a not insignificant element of employment in Wales. That is a side issue, but it is worth mentioning. I beg the Government to reconsider the matter.
We are talking about the difference between ideology and pragmatism. The Opposition parties—Labour, Liberal Democrats and Plaid Cymru—have proposed a pragmatic approach and a pragmatic response. To insist on competition between the public and private sectors to maximise efficiency is perfectly reasonable and shows a confidence in market forces which is rational. To prevent the public sector from competing with the private sector in the provision of services to the public sector and to assume that the private sector will deliver the goods in all circumstances seems to betray a faith in market forces which borders on the mystical. We should not be legislating on the basis of mysticism.
May I examine amendments Nos. 121 and 122 in the context of local government reorganisation in Wales. The amendments would enable local education authorities to sell their services in any part of Wales. They are meaningful only if amendment No. 120 is passed so that we get rid of the prohibition beyond the margin of capacity after two years.
In connection with that, I shall quote from paragraph 46 of the White Paper on local government reorganisation in Wales:
Authorities must be directly accountable to local people for the services which they secure (by purchase or otherwise). The new unitary authorities will therefore normally be responsible in law for securing the provision of services. But statutory responsibility does not mean that each authority should itself seek to provide every aspect of service, so authorities will need to have a flexible legal framework allowing them both to work much more closely with one

another and to purchase services and expertise from each other and from outside agencies—including the private and voluntary sectors.
That is clear enough. It keeps with the purchaser-provider relationship which the Government advocate and there is something to be said for it. If it makes sense for local authorities to be allowed to sell any services to each other, surely it makes sense in education. There is no justification for differentiating between education and other services.

Mrs. Jacqui Lait: Would the hon. Gentleman contemplate the concept of the local education authority as a monopoly provider and that what he recommends remains a monopoly? We are trying to break down the monopoly and create competition. Such competition will provide a much greater opportunity for many more people to provide good quality services in exactly the same way as the purchaser-provider relationship in the health service has been broken down from a monopoly into a much broader competitive field.

Mr. Dafis: I am not quarrelling with the concept of the purchaser-provider split. I am saying that, in the White Paper, it is envisaged that one local authority shall be the provider and another local authority shall be the purchaser. It would not be a monopoly situation but one in which the private sector could also offer services so that there was competition between the public and private sectors. There would be a varied pattern of purchasers and providers.
We should not allow an ideology-driven English Government—which is what we have—to mess up the provision and delivery of education services in Wales. Obviously, the smaller size of the new local authorities in Wales will make it more difficult for all of them to deliver the whole range of services. The White Paper opens up the possibility for what are called lead authorities to specialise in various fields and supply services to each other, alongside contributions from the private sector.
The scope for specialisation within the education service is considerable—for example, specialised courses and residential courses, including courses for the learning of Welsh. The demand for such courses will certainly increase, partly as a result of the Government's Welsh Language Bill. One local education authority could make such specialised courses available for purchasing by people working in the education service in other parts of Wales.
Teams of inspectors specialising in specific parts of the curriculum could be working for one local education authority with their services being for sale to schools in other local education authorities and grant-maintained schools. It has been suggested to me that, unless we have a market for those teams of inspectors throughout Wales, it will be difficult to recruit sufficient people to them, especially to carry out inspections through the Welsh medium.

The Minister of State, Welsh Office (Sir Wyn Roberts): The hon. Gentleman knows only too well that we have created the office of an independent inspectorate for Wales which operates on a Wales-wide basis, not on a local education basis.

Mr. Dafis: I am grateful for that intervention. I was talking about the possibility of teams of inspectors being employed by a local education authority and then selling their services to schools in other local education authority


areas. Is that not a possibility? Perhaps I am misunderstanding the matter, but that is what has been suggested by people in the education service in Wales.
Advisory services in specific subjects have been developed by local education authorities in Wales. Those services exist among employees and can be provided to other areas in Wales. It would be tragic if local authorities were prevented from supplying services to schools in other areas. To allow them to do so would be within the spirit of the Secretary of State's White Paper.
Clause 257 would allow a local education authority for two years to sell services only to areas contiguous to it. That would be particularly disadvantageous in Wales, where the Government propose that there will be 21 authorities, because many fewer of them will be contiguous with each other. An English authority on the Welsh border could sell services to schools in Powys, Monmouthshire, Wrexham or Flintshire, but many Welsh authorities could not sell services to those counties even though the syllabus in Wales is significantly different in many subjects from the syllabus in England.
If one looks at the map one can see, for example, that Anglesey could not sell services to Denbighshire, Cardiganshire, could not sell services to West Glamorgan, West Glamorgan could not sell services to Heads of the Valleys and Bridgend could not sell services to Caerphilly because those counties are not contiguous. If they were contiguous they could do so at least for two years. That is nonsense. It frustrates the intentions of the local government White Paper, which would enable general selling of services throughout Wales. We should not allow a Bill intoduced by a Government dominated by English interests and values—I do not think that the Bill would ever have emerged from the Welsh Office—to undermine the Welsh education system. It is possible that it could.
I should be interested to hear the Minister's comments on the position that I have described. I beg the Government to show flexibility and no more on the matter.

Mrs. Angela Knight: The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis) has mistaken the intention of the clause. We are dealing not with some prohibition but with relaxation. The reference notes which are available to all of us in the Members' Library clarify the point.
At present, local education authorities with grant-maintained schools in their area can sell services to those schools, provided that they are trading at the margin of capacity. The clause allows that procedure to operate more widely under certain circumstances. There is a period of two years in which local education authorities can employ additional staff or incur additional expenditure, if it is necessary because there are no private sector suppliers in those areas. That is the point. The existing procedure is being relaxed. The hon. Gentleman led the House to believe that the clause represented a prohibition.

Mr. Byers: The hon. Lady used the phrase "margin of capacity", which has also been used by the Minister. It is not used in the relevant legislation on local authority goods and services. Will she tell the House where the phrase comes from?

Mrs. Knight: My hon. Friend the Minister answered that question in Committee, and dealt with the point earlier today. Undoubtedly, he will deal with it in more

detail in his reply. As the hon. Gentleman will know, the Audit Commission has interpreted the legislation as operating in the way that I have described. There is no contradiction on that point.
We must examine what a local authority is there to do. It is not there to provide everything for people in its area. It is there to enable certain necessary services to be delivered. Within that framework, competitive tendering has been widely successful in local authorities across the country for services such as cleaning, rubbish collection and direct labour organisation operations. It is now cascading through into the professional services. That is correct, because competitive tendering has ensured not only that the quality of services has increased for the benefit of local people but that the cost of services has declined.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North implied that grant-maintained schools were desperate to receive services from local authorities and the local authorities were desperate to supply services to grant-maintained schools. I take issue with that. In my area, Derbyshire county council refused to have anything whatever to do with grant-maintained schools So it is relevant to the debate to examine what grant-maintained schools do when they seek the services that they require.
7.15 pm
I refer all hon. Members to the recent report and survey on what grant-maintained schools are doing. They are turning to private firms or employing their own staff to run ancillary services. Local authorities are failing to win contracts especially for cleaning and school meals. The survey was carried out just before Christmas, and covered 229 schools which had either opted out or were in the process of doing so and had made decisions on contracts.
The survey was not carried out by the Department for Education, by the Grant-Maintained Schools Centre or by some Conservative party think tank; it was undertaken on behalf of the Confederation of Health Service Employees, the National and Local Government Officers Association, the National Union of Public Employees and the Transport and General Workers Union.

Mr. Gerry Steinberg: Why does the hon. Lady think that contracts which were put out to competitive tender were won by the private sector? Might it not have something to do with the fact that private companies paid half the wages that direct labour organisations paid?

Mrs. Knight: Contracts were won by the private sector because private companies put in better, more competitive bids to provide a good-quality service for the area. If the hon. Gentleman looked at what his constituents wanted rather that what he personally would prefer, he would conclude that any area, any resident and any constituent requires a good quality service at a good quality price.
I return to the telling report. It is noticeable that Opposition Members do not like it. It concludes that only four schools which had opted out asked councils to provide the full range of services. Most had a pick-and-mix approach, but the trend was towards schools running their own services. The trend is for grant-maintained schools to look to others to provide services, not back to the LEA from which they have fled.

Mr. Jamieson: Will the hon. Lady confirm that some grant-maintained schools might be happy to buy into consortium arrangements with local education authorities to buy fuel? She may have seen last week announcements in the press that grant-maintained schools were no longer in local authority arrangements. They have to pay £2,000 more a year for their gas than hitherto. Perhaps she would comment on that.

Mrs. Knight: I have no trouble with consortia. I have no worry about trusts. That is the way in which we should proceed. We should move not from one monopolistic supplier to another but to variety and choice. I would say to schools which have joined together in consortia that they have some clout, and they should use it to obtain the best deal from whichever petrol, oil or gas supplier the hon. Gentleman refers to. That is the way forward, and the way in which we want the service to go.
Local government reorganisation is coming to us all—not merely to Wales—and it will ensure that schools start to think clearly about the services that they require and the way in which they wish to proceed. Rather than merely deciding whether to stay within the local education authority or go grant maintained, they will be able to decide how to ensure that the services that they need can be best provided.

Mr. Jamieson: The hon. Lady missed the point of my intervention. Grant-maintained schools are on their own because they have left the consortia provided by the local education authorities. They have to buy fuel from monopoly private organisations, such as British Gas, which charge them substantially more. The Bill will stop them from being in the consortia provided by the LEAs.

Mrs. Knight: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to my answer. I said that grant-maintained schools should join together into consortia so that they can use their clout as a group of schools to ensure that they get the best price for whatever commodity they need. I undoubtedly urge schools to continue in that direction.

Mr. Richards: The hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Mr. Jamieson) mentioned consortia, but he was really talking about over-manned, over-staffed, overpaid bureaucracy.

Mrs. Knight: I thank my hon. Friend, who argues clearly, coherently and very well indeed.
Conservative Members want a flourishing grant-maintained sector, with flourishing private-sector suppliers, which will result in the money going into education being spent on pupils, rather than going into the pockets of an over-manned local education authority. That is the way forward.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North misread and misinterpreted the clause. That also happened in Committee, and it is about time that Opposition Members recognised the intention of the clause—better education for children.

Mr. Paul Murphy: I do not believe for one minute that the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North misinterpreted anything, and he has hit the nail on the head when it comes to this clause.
In Committee, we were allowed inadequate time to discuss the clause. This morning I re-read the speech that my hon. Friend the Member for Cambridge (Mrs.

Campbell) made in Committee on the day that we discussed it, and I pay tribute to her. She highlighted the method in Cambridgeshire, where services have been successfully devolved to grant-maintained schools and to those belonging to the local education authority.
I want to concentrate on the situation in Wales because I understand that the Minister of State, Welsh Office is going to reply to the debate.

Mr. Win Griffiths: If he has time.

Mr. Murphy: I am sure he will. I have only been speaking for the last two and a half minutes, and I shall not continue for too long, as I do not want to miss this important opportunity.
Although the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North referred to the Welsh language, he did not mention the Urdd Gobaith Cymru—the Welsh youth movement—which has written to all Members of Parliament representing Wales to express its concern about the clause and the difficulties that will result from its enactment. Its letter states:
the threat posed by the Education Act"—
and the clause in particular—
could inflict permanent damage to the organisation and that without the Urdd being directly involved.
The Urdd says that it operates
a unique service for the children and young people of Wales",
which could well be jeopardised by the provisions that we are discussing.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also mentioned the provision of music services in the Principality. The revenue support grant settlement was announced only a few weeks ago. As a result, county after county in Wales has had to reduce music support services for young people. The county music service in South Glamorgan has been operating since 1936-2,500 children in the county are in bands and orchestras and 4,000 receive peripatetic music lessons in schools. The county council has been virtually forced to end the free provision of orchestras, bands and music because of the cuts that the Government have imposed. I believe that the clause will also threaten music services.
Wales is rich in outdoor pursuit centres, and the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North also referred to those. To a large extent, Wales subsidises English local education authorities through such centres. It may be of interest to the House to learn that it is estimated that each of the outdoor pursuit centres in Wales brings in £250,000 per year to the local economy, which adds up to about £10 million and the employment of about 1,000 people in Wales.
Such centres recently asked the Welsh Office about their future, if services provided by the local education authorities are likely to be jeopardised. A Welsh Office spokesman said that the Government would expect such services to be provided by the private sector if they were in demand from schools, and that the relevant clause in the Bill was simply a proposal: it was not yet law, and was subject to change. I sincerely hope that the spokesman was talking sense, and that there will be a change in the measures.
I have received a great wad of letters from schools in Oxfordshire which use the Woodlands centre for outdoor education in Powys. I do not have time to read them all,


but they include letters from parents, head teachers and pupils who have made great use of the services provided by our local education authorities.
For Wales, the most important factor is that the Secretary of State for Wales announced on Monday his plans for local government reorganisation in the Principality. He said:
I am today publishing a … White Paper … This follows a consultative process lasting more than two years, and I take this opportunity once again to express my gratitude to the Welsh local authority associations for their wholehearted and constructive participation in that process."—[Official Report, 1 March 1993; Vol. 220, c.19.]
Of course he was right, but that does not square with the reported words of the Minister of State when he addressed the Secondary Heads Association in Llandrindod Wells about two weeks ago and made a stinging attack on Welsh local education authorities for a variety of reasons.
Also it does not square with the comments of the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West (Mr. Richards), who referred a few minutes ago to overweening bureaucracy in Wales. Who are we to believe—the Secretary of State, the Minister of State or the hon. Member for Clwyd, North-West? Are local authorities providing good services in Wales or not? The Secretary of State seems to believe that they are not doing a bad job.
In the White Paper, the Secretary of State also said that he wants tremendous flexibility in the provision of services when the new authorities are set up. He said that local authorities are enablers as well as providers, and that they will co-operate with one another, selling one another their services. Where do grant-maintained schools stand in all that? Can they not benefit from the new regime which the Secretary of State proposes for Wales? If there is to be flexibility, and local authorities are to provide services for all 21 unitary authorities in Wales, why can that not be extended to grant-maintained schools?
The Secretary of State also referred to
specialist residential centres, education/business partnerships and artistic opportunities such as youth orchestras and theatre in schools".
All those will be in jeopardy unless the Government think again about the clause.
Wales will be a poorer place without our orchestras, centres, drama groups and libraries and, most important of all, the services provided by our local education authorities.

Mr. Congdon: In its original incarnation as clause 244, clause 257 generated much heat and not much light. Fortunately, in many ways the debate in Committee managed to clarify many of the misunderstandings about the clause.
What has intrigued me about the debates, both in Committee and today, is why Opposition Members are so concerned about the clause. I think that all of them, on each occasion that we have discussed the Bill, have said that grant-maintained schools will not flourish and that there will not be an avalanche of them. If they do not flourish and there is no avalanche, the impact of the restrictions on local authorities trading with grant-maintained schools will not bite. In that sense, one could argue that the clause was irrelevant and local authorities could continue to be the monopoly provider. I would not support dropping the clause because, unlike Opposition Members, I believe that grant-maintained schools will

flourish and there will be an avalanche of applications from schools wishing to go grant-maintained. We are seeing that already.
The key reason why it is essential to have such a clause is to enable a private sector to flourish—we made no secret of that in Committee. Opposition Members made great play of the fact that there should be a level playing field to allow local authorities to compete. They seemed to suggest that, by some miraculous method, the private sector would win through. So long as there is a monopoly provider, the private sector will not flourish. We saw that clearly when early attempts were made to introduce competition into the provision of other local authority services. It was difficult for firms to set up even to provide refuse collections and cleaning, because we have now seen those services flourish, providing benefits to community charge payers up and down the country.
The clause, as my hon. Friend the Member for Earwash—

Mrs. Angela Knight: Erewash.

Mr. Congdon: I apologise to my hon. Friend the Member for Erewash (Mrs. Knight)—it was a Freudian slip. As she said, the clause clearly gives local authorities the opportunity, by order of the Secretary of State, to be allowed to trade with grant-maintained schools for a period of two years if that is so designated. That is an important and sensible concession. We want grant-maintained schools to have the opportunity to buy services in a range of sectors, including financial, personnel, training, libraries and music.

Mr. Steinberg: Does the hon. Gentleman not appreciate that a school library service contains literally hundreds of thousands of pounds worth of stock? Is he really expecting the private sector to build up another stock of exactly the same amount of resources? Does he not understand the absolute waste of money and resources in having two providers when one can amply provide for everyone?

Mr. Congdon: I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman has such a limited imagination as to what could happen if the market for the provision of library services is opened up. Schools will have devolved spending responsibility in a variety of sectors. Grant-maintained schools will have that responsibility in all functions and can choose where they purchase books for their library. There is no problem about that.
Earlier, great play was made of the issue of choice. It was said that grant-maintained schools would, not have the choice of using an LEA service. But they would, provided that the LEA is trading at the margin. In many areas, they will continue to trade at the margin until there is a sizeable number of grant-maintained schools.

Mr. Win Griffiths: Define the margin.

Mr. Congdon: It is difficult to define "at the margin". That is not a weakness of the proposals, but a strength. They rightly and properly leave individual local authorities and, crucially, the auditor to judge whether they are operating in accordance with the law of the land. The provisions are not over-prescriptive, which is important.
In reality, if local authorities were allowed to continue to trade indefinitely with grant-maintained schools, the only choice available for grant-maintained schools would


be to use the local education authority service. In that scenario, the private sector would not enter the market as there would not be a market for it to use. That is why it is important that such provisions are available.
As my hon. Friend—perhaps I should not try to pronounce the name of her constituency again—the Member for Erewash said, it is important that local authorities are enablers, rather than direct providers of services. If they become enablers, they are given the crucial role of monitoring more carefully and closely the quality of services provided.
There is an irony about the fact that arguments have been voiced about local authorities trading with grant-maintained schools. I believe that it was Derbyshire county council—as we were told in Committee—that refused to provide services or to trade with the grant-maintained schools in its area. Are we witnessing a conversion in the Labour party in that it now recognises that it should trade with grant-maintained schools? It certainly did not in Derbyshire.
It is important that we resist the amendments as they would only perpetuate the position in which there is one monopoly provider. If we value the provision of services to grant-maintained schools and enable them to have real choice and value for money, we must ensure that a free, flourishing and successful market has the opportunity to grow. That is why I oppose the amendments.

Mrs. Anne Campbell: The position is unclear. The hon. Member for Croydon, North-East (Mr. Congdon) described that as a strength. I do not see it as a strength and I believe that clarification of what is meant by trading at the margin will eventually lead to some local authorities being involved in expensive court cases. I cannot believe that that is the Minister's intention. Surely it is better to sort the matter out so that we all know where we stand and people do not have to take local authorities to court to obtain a decision as to whether those authorities are trading at the margin.

Mr. Forth: It is much simpler than that. The main responsibility for the determination of trading at the margin will lie jointly with the district auditor and the financial accounting officer of the local authority. I see no need for court cases if local authorities conduct their business responsibly. It should be perfectly straightforward to determine the margin, case by case.

Mrs. Campbell: I am aware that district auditors interpret trading at the margin in different ways in different areas. There is a high degree of confusion, not to say chaos, about the clause.
The Conservative philosophy has been made clear from what Conservative Members have said. As in so many other matters, the philosophy is not about co-operation or working together to create communities—which is what the Labour party believes in—but about creating conflict and competition. That is not the best way to educate our children in the next few years and into the next century.
I want local education authorities, schools, teachers, governors and parents to put their efforts into educating and getting the best out of our children, helping them to flourish and giving them the best possible education. I do not want schools and teachers to spend their time worrying

about where their next contract will come from, who is competing with whom and who is producing what—and giving an inferior service at the end of the day.
I am also concerned that a number of schools which have opted out of local authority control were simply not aware that that was the Government's intention. Yesterday I waved at the Minister a booklet entitled "Education for the Next Century". Unfortunately I have left it in my office today. That clearly says that local education authorities will be able to trade with grant-maintained schools for some school services. Many parents will have been misled by that booklet which is available to all parents in libraries throughout the country.

Mr. Steinberg: In a letter to the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone), the Under-Secretary of State said:
It is simply wrong to claim that schools will be deprived of access to local authority support services.
That is not accurate. The Minister is giving wrong information to his hon. Friends and the grant-maintained sector.

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point. There has also been a great deal of confusion in my local authority. There have been different interpretations in the local media. People find it difficult to understand that that could possibly be the Government's intention. There is a sense of disbelief about the clause.
There is also confusion among Conservative Members about what library services involve. For the education of Conservative Members, I will clarify what library services in schools are all about. They can be either part of the local education authority or, in some parts of the country, part of the public library service contracted to work for the local education authority. They provide not only book loans but packs to support topic work in the national curriculum; they offer advice and help to schools in the creation and maintenance of their own library and resources centres; they provide in-service training opportunities for teachers and other staff; they also create links between the children's public library service and school libraries.
It is not a question of the library service providing a stock of books that any private organisation can supply—provided, of course, that it has the capital. It is a great deal more than that. It is about experience built up over 50 years in some cases. It is a wonderful example of a shared resource and the way in which the maximum benefit can be obtained from public expenditure.
The school library service offers all schools, but particularly small primary schools, a resource that they could not possibly provide themselves, and it gives them access to a much wider range of resources. There are no external competitors for most elements of that provision. Many reports of Her Majesty's inspectorate have criticised libraries in schools, sometimes because they have too little stock, but that is a reflection of the school's inadequate budget for library acquisitions and not a criticism of the school library service itself. School library services are often praised in HMI reports; on occasion, they are highlighted as the only good thing about a school library. The reports are not praising the stock of books but the services that go with the library service. From comments made yesterday, Conservative Members do not seem to understand what the school library service is all about.
The point that I am making is that school library services are not like cleaning, catering or ground


maintenance services. They offer a great deal more—something that I find impossible to believe could be provided by a private agency coming in from outside.
We have heard a lot today about the support that local education authorities can offer schools in their areas. When we were talking earlier about education associations a great deal was said about the role that a local education authority can play in supporting not only a failing school but a highly successful school as well.
I want to illustrate that with an example. In December 1991 an arson attack on St. No school in St. Ives destroyed the science block with six teaching laboratories and a unique collection of animals built up over many years. Teaching materials, text books, teachers' personal scientific notes, pupils' project work for A—levels, pupils' GCSE work, work books, mark books, assessments, equipment, computers, visual aids, furnishings and fittings were also lost.
7.45 pm
The local education authority was able to mobilise a wide range of practical and specialist help within hours, clearing the ruins, making the area safe, bringing in mobile classrooms, co—ordinating help from other schools, advancing money for replacements required immediately, advising about the loss of pupils' GCSE and A—level work, supporting staff, dealing with insurance claims, and so on. The school was able to keep going and by the beginning of the next term science teaching was back on course.
That was a large school with experienced staff and I have to ask how any grant—maintained school would have coped in similar circumstances without the local education authority's expertise to hand. Make no mistake about it, we are talking about the destruction of the local education authority's support service for something which will be tenuous and difficult to replace. It is just not enough to be insured.
That school is in the Prime Minister's constituency. It has just held a parental ballot and the prospect of leaving the local education authority was overwhelmingly rejected by the parents. I am not at all surprised.
Conservative Members are being naive about the clause. They assume that the private sector will step in and provide a service. It will not be a better service and in many cases there will be no service at all.

Dr. Tony Wright: Such an example could be echoed and repeated throughout the country and through a range of services. That surely reveals that the Government's prime purpose is clearly to destroy local education authorities. The Government are not concerned with the implications of that for the quality of service that the education authorities provide. We have just heard it said that the purpose of this legislation is to let the private sector flourish—nothing to do with education or the quality of the service. Is that not exactly the divide that we are talking about?

Mrs. Campbell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for making that point—on which I wanted to conclude, so it comes at an opportune moment. The restriction placed on local education authorities to prevent them from trading with grant—maintained schools has nothing to do with raising education standards. It is about encouraging the private sector and perhaps encouraging Conservative party supporters to set up businesses in competition with

the local education authority, thus making themselves a great deal of money. I hope that the amendment will be accepted.

Sir Wyn Roberts: I am sorry to complain yet again that the Government have been left little time to respond to the debate. I intended to confine my remarks only to the Welsh amendments, which were moved over a period of 25 minutes by the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North (Mr. Dafis), in the hope that the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Schools, my hon. Friend the Member for Mid—Worcestershire (Mr. Forth), would deal with the amendment concerning England with his customary verve and dexterity.
Clause 257 will allow the Secretary of State to make an order enabling a local education authority to sell services beyond the margins of capacity to grant—maintained schools in its own area, or in the area of a neighbouring LEA, for up to two years.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North explained the reasoning behind his amendment, which was prompted by his concern that some LEAs in Wales would not be in a position to provide such services. Government policy is clear—that local authorities should not be trading organisations. I do not think that community charge or council tax payers would approve either. There can be no justification for a different approach in Wales.
Clause 257 recognises the special circumstances which exist in the case of the developing grant—maintained sector. That is why the clause provides temporary relaxation.
In the context of local government reorganisation, we made it perfectly clear that we expect the new, smaller unitary authorities in Wales to adopt a variety of ways of discharging their statutory responsibility to deliver services, including education. Those methods could include joint working and co—operation or, through an authority, arranging for another authority to discharge functions on its behalf.
The Local Government Act 1972 already allows an authority to arrange for another to discharge many of its functions. Clause 258 provides that local authorities will no longer be required to establish education committees. One consequence of that will be to bring education into line with other services and to allow that function, or certain elements of it, to be discharged by another authority—which may employ staff specifically for that purpose—rather than having, as the law currently stands, to go through the process of establishing joint education committees.
In terms of the delivery of service by the new unitary authorities, I do not envisage difficulties. Let us not forget that many of the day—to—day operational responsibilities of managing the education system have already been delegated to schools.
To return to the provision of services to grant—maintained schools by the new unitary authorities, and the relevance of clause 257, at present each LEA in Wales is bounded by at least two other education authorities. In some cases the other authorities may be in England. Under the Local Government (Goods and Services) Act 1970, any LEA can provide services to any grant—maintained school anywhere in Wales and England so long as it does not exceed the margins of capacity.
Clause 257 would allow LEAs to operate for up to two years in their own and in a neighbouring LEA's area


beyond the margins of capacity. If any orders were made under clause 257 before local government reorganisation, they would effectively expire with the abolition of the existing LEAs on 31 March 1995.
After reorganisation, each proposed unitary authority in Wales would be bounded by two or more education authorities—except Anglesey. This next point is important. As now, under the 1970 Act, any unitary authority in Wales or LEA in England could provide services to any grant—maintained school anywhere in Wales and England so long as it did so within the margins of capacity. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Schools pointed out in an early intervention, clause 257 will come into play only if an authority wants to provide services to grant—maintained schools in its own or a neighbouring authority's area beyond the margins of capacity. Because the unitary authorities in Wales would be entirely new, the fact that there might have been an order under clause 257 relating to the education authority for the same area prior to reorganisation would not be relevant. The unitary authority's power conferred by an order under clause 257 could run for two years from the making of the order.
Even in the case of grant—maintained schools in Anglesey—which, as everybody knows, is very much an island—the picture is not so bleak as some would paint. It would be open to the unitary authorities for the island and for neighbouring Caernarfonshire and Merionethshire to provide services to them beyond the margins of capacity by way of an order under clause 257, but it would also be open to those schools in Anglesey to purchase the services from any education authority in Wales and England if they could be provided by that authority within the margins of capacity.
We are confident that the move to unitary authorities will not adversely affect the provision of services to LEA or grant—maintained schools. The amendments are well meaning, but the special treatment that they seek to give Wales is not necessary and cannot be justified.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North made mention of facilities that are special to Wales, such as language centres and peripatetic teachers of Welsh. I am sure that existing LEAs will be anxious to sell the services of such centres and teachers to grant—maintained schools which need them and that grant—maintained schools, which are obliged to follow the national curriculum—there is no difference between them and LEA—maintained schools in that respect—will be anxious to purchase.
I am sure also that as the grant—maintained sector grows it will want to develop independent sources. That has been the history of development in Wales. A parallel can be found in broadcasting. At one time, there were no independent producers of programmes in Wales, but we provided in legislation for their existence; as a result, they came into being and today they represent a flourishing sector.
Grant—maintained schools will have special purpose grants which cover the development of the national curriculum and associated developments—school management and appraisal, and staff training and development.
My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned the use of the Local Government Act 1972 in respect of choirs, orchestras and bands. They can be organised by LEAs under section 145 of that legislation without falling within the ambit of clause 257. I remind the hon. Member for Torfaen (Mr. Murphy) that many youth establishments of the kind to which he referred are privately funded.
We do not see any special circumstances in Wales which warrant treatment different from that given in England. In regard to England, we reaffirm our current position: we are certainly not in the business of enabling local authorities to trade in competition with the private sector which we are certain will develop in the supply of services to the grant—maintained sector.
I repeat what I said to the hon. Member for Torfaen and, indeed, say it to the hon. Member for Ceredigion and Pembroke, North. They represent—

It being Eight o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

The House divided: Ayes 246, Noes 274.

Division No. 170]
[8 pm


AYES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Cousins, Jim


Adams, Mrs Irene
Cryer, Bob


Ainger, Nick
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Allen, Graham
Dafis, Cynog


Alton, David
Dalyell, Tarn


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Darling, Alistair


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Davidson, Ian


Armstrong, Hilary
Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)


Ashton, Joe
Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)


Barnes, Harry
Denham, John


Barron, Kevin
Dewar, Donald


Battle, John
Dixon, Don


Bayley, Hugh
Donohoe, Brian H.


Bell, Stuart
Dowd, Jim


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Dunnachie, Jimmy


Bennett, Andrew F.
Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth


Benton, Joe
Eagle, Ms Angela


Bermingham, Gerald
Eastham, Ken


Berry, Dr. Roger
Enright, Derek


Betts, Clive
Etherington, Bill


Blair, Tony
Evans, John (St Helens N)


Blunkett, David
Fatchett, Derek


Boateng, Paul
Faulds, Andrew


Boyce, Jimmy
Field, Frank (Birkenhead)


Boyes, Roland
Fisher, Mark


Bradley, Keith
Flynn, Paul


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Foster, Rt Hon Derek


Burden, Richard
Foster, Don (Bath)


Byers, Stephen
Fraser, John


Caborn, Richard
Fyfe, Maria


Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)
Galbraith, Sam


Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)
Gapes, Mike


Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)
Garrett, John


Campbell-Savours, D. N.
George, Bruce


Cann, Jamie
Gerrard, Neil


Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)
Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John


Chisholm, Malcolm
Godman, Dr Norman A.


Clapham, Michael
Godsiff, Roger


Clark, Dr David (South Shields)
Golding, Mrs Llin


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Gordon, Mildred


Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)
Graham, Thomas


Clelland, David
Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)


Coffey, Ann
Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)


Cohen, Harry
Gunnell, John


Connarty, Michael
Hain, Peter


Corbett, Robin
Hall, Mike


Corbyn, Jeremy
Hanson, David






Harvey, Nick
Mullin, Chris


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Murphy, Paul


Henderson, Doug
O'Brien, Michael (N Wkshire)


Heppell, John
O'Brien, William (Normantcn)


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
O'Hara, Edward


Hinchliffe, David
Olner, William


Hoey, Kate
Parry, Robert


Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)
Pendry, Tom


Home Robertson, John
Pickthall, Colin


Hood, Jimmy
Pike, Peter L.


Hoon, Geoffrey
Pope, Greg


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Powell, Ray (Ogmore)


Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)
Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)


Hoyle, Doug
Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Prescott, John


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Primarolo, Dawn


Hughes, Roy (Newport E)
Purchase, Ken


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Quin, Ms Joyce


Hutton, John
Randall, Stuart


Illsley, Eric
Raynsford, Nick


Ingram, Adam
Redmond, Martin


Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)
Reid, Dr John


Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)
Robertson, George (Hamilton)


Jamieson, David
Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)


Janner, Greville
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Johnston, Sir Russell
Rogers, Allan


Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)
Rooker, Jeff


Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)
Rooney, Terry


Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)
Ruddock, Joan


Jowell, Tessa
Salmond, Alex


Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald
Sedgemore, Brian


Keen, Alan
Sheerman, Barry


Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Khabra, Piara S.
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Kilfoyle, Peter
Short, Clare


Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)
Simpson, Alan


Kirkwood, Archy
Skinner, Dennis


Leighton, Ron
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Lewis, Terry
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Litherland, Robert
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Snape, Peter


Llwyd, Elfyn
Soley, Clive


Loyden, Eddie
Spearing, Nigel


Lynne, Ms Liz
Spellar, John


McAllion, John
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


McAvoy, Thomas
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


McCartney, Ian
Steinberg, Gerry


Macdonald, Calum
Stott, Roger


McFall, John
Strang, Dr. Gavin


McKelvey, William
Straw, Jack


Maclennan, Robert
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


McWilliam, John
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


Madden, Max
Tipping, Paddy


Mahon, Alice
Tyler, Paul


Mandelson, Peter
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Marek, Dr John
Wallace, James


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Wai ley, Joan


Martlew, Eric
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Maxton, John
Wicks, Malcolm


Meacher, Michael
Wigley, Dafydd


Meale, Alan
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Wilson, Brian


Milburn, Alan
Winnick, David


Miller, Andrew
Wise, Audrey


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Worthington, Tony


Morgan, Rhodri
Wray, Jimmy


Morley, Elliot
Wright, Dr Tony


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)



Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Mowlam, Marjorie
Mr. Gordon McMaster and


Mudie, George
Mr. Dennis Turner.


NOES


Adley, Robert
Amess, David


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Ancram, Michael


Aitken, Jonathan
Arbuthnot, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)





Aspinwall, Jack
Forman, Nigel


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Forth, Eric


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Baldry, Tony
Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)


Bates, Michael
French, Douglas


Batiste, Spencer
Fry, Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Gale, Roger


Bendall, Vivian
Gallie, Phil


Beresford, Sir Paul
Gardiner, Sir George


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Garnier, Edward


Blackburn, Dr John G.
Gillan, Cheryl


Body, Sir Richard
Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Booth, Hartley
Gorst, John


Boswell, Tim
Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Bowden, Andrew
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Bowis, John
Grylls, Sir Michael


Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brandreth, Gyles
Hague, William


Brazier, Julian
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Bright, Graham
Hampson, Dr Keith


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hannam, Sir John


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hargreaves, Andrew


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Harris, David


Burns, Simon
Haselhurst, Alan


Burt, Alistair
Hawkins, Nick


Butcher, John
Hawksley, Warren


Butler, Peter
Hayes, Jerry


Butterfill, John
Heald, Oliver


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hendry, Charles


Carrington, Matthew
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence IL.


Carttiss, Michael
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Cash, William
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Horam, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clappison, James
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Coe, Sebastian
Jack, Michael


Congdon, David
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Conway, Derek
Jenkin, Bernard


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Cormack, Patrick
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Couchman, James
Key, Robert


Cran, James
Kilfedder, Sir James


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knapman, Roger


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewasb)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Day, Stephen
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Knox, David


Devlin, Tim
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Dickens, Geoffrey
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dorrell, Stephen
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Leigh, Edward


Dover, Den
Lidington, David


Duncan, Alan
Lightbown, David


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Dunn, Bob
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Durant, Sir Anthony
Lord, Michael


Dykes, Hugh
Luff, Peter


Eggar, Tim
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Elletson, Harold
MacKay, Andrew


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Maclean, David


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
McLoughlin, Patrick


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Madel, David


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
Maitland, Lady Olga


Evennett, David
Major, Rt Hon John


Faber, David
Malone, Gerald


Fabricant, Michael
Mans, Keith


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
Marlow, Tony


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fishburn, Dudley
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)






Mawhinney, Dr Brian
Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)


Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick
Soames, Nicholas


Mellor, Rt Hon David
Spencer, Sir Derek


Merchant, Piers
Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)


Milligan, Stephen
Spink, Dr Robert


Mills, Iain
Spring, Richard


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Sproat, Iain


Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Monro, Sir Hector
Steen, Anthony


Montgomery, Sir Fergus
Stephen, Michael


Moss, Malcolm
Stern, Michael


Needham, Richard
Stewart, Allan


Nelson, Anthony
Streeter, Gary


Neubert, Sir Michael
Sumberg, David


Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sweeney, Walter


Nicholls, Patrick
Sykes, John


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Norris, Steve
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Thomason, Roy


Ottaway, Richard
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Page, Richard
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Paice, James
Thurnham, Peter


Patten, Rt Hon John
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Pawsey, James
Tracey, Richard


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Tredinnick, David


Pickles, Eric
Trend, Michael


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Trotter, Neville


Porter, David (Waveney)
Twinn, Dr Ian


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Powell, William (Corby)
Viggers, Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Redwood, John
Walden, George


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Richards, Rod
Waller, Gary


Riddick, Graham
Ward, John


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Robathan, Andrew
Waterson, Nigel


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Wells, Bowen


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Whitney, Ray


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Whittingdale, John


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Widdecombe, Ann


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Wilkinson, John


Sackville, Tom
Willetts, David


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Wilshire, David


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wolfson, Mark


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wood, Timothy


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Yeo, Tim


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Shersby, Michael



Sims, Roger
Tellers for the Noes:


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Mr. Irvine Patrick and


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.

Question accordingly negatived.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER: then put the Questions on all amendments moved by a member of the Government up to the end of clause 265.

Clause 265

GENERAL INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No. 147, in clause 265, page 155, line 27, at end insert—
' "alterations", in relation to any school premises, includes improvements, extensions and additions and "alter" shall be read accordingly'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Schedule 16

MINOR AND CONSEQUENTIAL AMENDMENTS

Amendments made: No. 81, in page 204, line 6, at end insert—
'. Section 1(1) (general duty of Secretary of State) is omitted'.

No. 148, in page 204, line 9, at end insert—
`. In section 15 (voluntary schools) for "the maintenance contribution payable by the Minister under this Act", in subsections (2) and (5), there is substituted "grants under section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993" '.
No. 149, in page 205, line 2 at end insert—
`. Sections 102 and 103 (contributions and grants by Secretary of State to aided and special agreement schools) are omitted'.

No. 150, in page 205, line 3 leave out '(3)'.

No. 151, in page 205, line 4 after 'expenditure', insert—

'(a) in subsection (2)—

(i) in paragraph (c)(i) for "a maintenance contribution" there is substituted "grants under section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993",
(ii) in paragraph (c)(iii) for the words from "which" to the end there is substituted "being expenses in respect of which grants under section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993 may be paid",
(iii) paragraph (d) is omitted, and
(iv) in the words following that paragraph, "maintenance contribution" is omitted and for "either of the last two foregoing sections" there is substituted "section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993", and

(b) in subsection (3)'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 134, in page 205, line 27, after 'education)' insert—
`( ) in paragraph 2(a) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions",
( ) in the proviso to paragraph 2 for "to represent other religious denominations" there is substituted "under sub-paragraph (a) above",
( ) in paragraph 3 before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,", and'.

Madam: Deputy Speaker (Dame Janet Fookes): With this is will be convenient to discuss also the following amendments: No. 127, in page 205, line 27, after `education', insert—
'( ) in paragraph 2(a) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions",
( ) in the proviso to paragraph 2 for "to represent other religious denominations" there is substituted "under sub-paragraph (a) above",
( ) in paragraph 3 before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion, and".'.

No. 180, in page 205, line 27, after 'education', insert—
'( ) In paragraph 2(a) for "appropriately" is substituted "in reasonable proportion".'.

No. 123, in page 213, line 10, at end insert in section 1 1 (4)(a) (Standing Advisory Councils on religious education) for "appropriately" is substituted "in reasonable proportion.".'.
Government amendment No. 136.
No. 36, in page 213, line 10 at end insert—
'. In section 9(7) (parent of boarder at maintained school requesting access to particular worship or religious education) after "particular" there is inserted "religion or".
In section 11(4)(a) (standing advisory councils on religious education) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions" and for "appropriately" there is substituted "proportionately".


In section 13 (advisory councils: supplementary provisions) in subsections (1), (2) and (7)(b) before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,".'.

No. 125, in page 213, line 10 at end insert—
`. In section 9(7) (parent of boarder at maintained school requesting access to particular worship or religious education) after "particular", there is inserted "religion or".
In section 11 (4)(a) (standing advisory councils on religious education) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions
In section 13 (advisory councils: supplementary provisions) in subsections (1), (2) and (7)(b) before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,".'.

No. 124, in page 217, line 10 at end add—
`132A. In section 9 of the Education (Schools) Act 1992 (Inspection of certain schools), in subsection (6), "education" there is inserted ", except that it may report on the school's compliance with section 6(1) of the Education Reform Act 1988.".
132B. In section 13 of that Act, (Religious education) in subsection (2), after "means", is inserted ", collective worship or".'.

Mr. Boswell: I wish to speak to Government amendments No. 134 and 136. I shall be brief because I know that a number of hon. Members wish to speak on this important topic. I am glad that we at last have the opportunity to debate the Bill's provisions for religious education. It is an essential element of the curriculum, and it is vital that we support the provision of good quality religious education for all children.
The Bill's provisions build on the arrangements set out in the Education Act 1944, which were strengthened in the Education Reform Act 1988. They are designed to bring the law into line with the new world of grant-maintained schools, heralded in last year's White Paper, and with the main thrust of the Bill itself.
The requirements for religious education have three main purposes. First, clauses 10 and 11 provide for appropriate representation on local bodies for grant-maintained schools following the 75 per cent. trigger being reached in a local area. Secondly, clauses 127 to 137 provide for religious education to be provided in different types of grant-maintained school. Thirdly, clause 232 provides for the review of agreed syllabuses where they have not yet been brought into line with the requirements of the 1988 Act, and for a regular review of syllabuses every five years.
Those provisions are sensible. They will provide better religious education for all pupils by ensuring that grant-maintained schools are fully committed to local arrangements and by stimulating curriculum development.
The Bill already incorporates a number of references which expand the various references to "denominations" in education law to include "religions". Specifically, Government amendments Nos. 134 and 136 have a simple purpose—to bring the law into line with practice. Sharp-eyed hon. Members will have noticed an identity between Government amendment No. 134 and my hon. Friend's amendment No. 127 and between Government amendment No. 136 and my hon. Friends' amendment No. 125—a case of great minds thinking alike.
In making these changes, we are responding to representations made to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who is here for this important debate, in particular by the Methodist church, as well as by other respondents to our consultation on the proposals for religious education and collective worship in the White Paper.
8.15 pm
As the amendments are technical I shall explain them briefly. Education law has always referred to religious denominations—I stress the word "denominations"— in describing three matters. The first is the particular character of religious schools and the religious education offered by them. The second is the wishes of parents regarding the education of their children. The third is the membership of religious faith committees on local bodies concerned with religious education. For some time, however, there have been anomalies which do not quite fit the law. For example, there have long been Jewish voluntary schools; references to denominations within that religion have had to be stretched to include religions in order to fit reality. There are also ecumenical Christian schools, which are supported by more than one denomination. Parents may have requested that children be given religious education in accordance with the tenets of a religion which would not recognise the term "denomination", and representatives of such religions have properly been represented on local advisory bodies.
In practice, therefore, the law has been applied as though the word "denomination" included the term "religion". The amendments ensure that there is no confusion and will make it clear that "religion" and "denomination" are both encompassed. It is right that this small change should be made.
Before I allow other hon. Members to speak to their amendments, I wish to make two brief comments. The change is consistent with the sections of the Further and Higher Education Act 1992 which deal with similar issues in further and higher education and where the terms that we are proposing are already used. I do not expect any difficulty with the established Church, other faiths or, I hope, hon. Members.
I advise the House that the amendments were originally tabled in slightly different form in Committee. They were not moved, however, because we received representations expressing concern that the position of Christian denominations on standing advisory councils on religious denominations and agreed syllabus conferences might be weakened. I can assure the House that that was never the intention, but the amendments have been redrafted to ensure that there is no possibility of such a misunderstanding. I accordingly commend Government amendments Nos. 134 and 136 to the House.

Mr. Anthony Coombs: I welcome the Government amendments which, as the Minister said, are identical to those tabled by my hon. Friends and I. I also welcome the opportunity to debate the important subject of religious education.
We very much welcome what the Government have done for religious education as a whole in the Bill and hope that more progress will be made here or in another place along the lines of amendments Nos. 180 and 123. They seek to determine more precisely the composition of committee A of the standing advisory councils on religious education and agreed syllabuses conferences. Amendment No. 124 refers to the inspection of religious education and the spiritual, moral and cultural development of pupils in schools. I also want to speak briefly about religious education in schools at present.
Although in 1944 religious education was made a statutory obligation for all schools and all local


authorities, sadly, in the intervening period—possibly due to the rise of secularism, and social and moral education —it has fallen into a parlous state in our schools.
In 1987 it was estimated that 62 per cent. of year 8 children and 58 per cent. of year 9 children had no religious education whatever. Recently David Pascal!, the chairman of the National Curriculum Council, estimated in writing that two thirds of children in our schools receive no religious education whatever. Small wonder that the Association of Christian Teachers said that religious education was safe on the statute book but not safe in schools.
I believe that religious education is crucial for the spiritual and moral development of our children. I refer back to what my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) said when he was Secretary of State for Education in 1988:
What the vast majority of children have been ultimately starved of are the riches of the spirit. Their ignorance of the historic faith of this country, a faith which has inspired and guided so many of its greatest men and women, is a national disgrace.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: I am sure that my hon. Friend will be happy to know that Lancashire has the highest proportion of church schools anywhere in the country. In my constituency—I do not know about other places—we have outstandingly good assemblies. Whenever I go to a school I always attend assembly. Assemblies are sometimes conducted by the children and sometimes by the headmistress or other members of staff —and they are outstandingly good.

Mr. Coombs: I am delighted to hear that in some parts of the country the same somewhat dismal picture is not apparent—as it is in too many other areas.
The Education Reform Act 1988 had an effect, first, by making SACREs compulsory and, secondly, by leaving control of syllabuses local. Possibly most important of all was the fact that section 8(3) said that agreed syllabuses after September 1989 must
reflect the fact that the religious traditions of Great Britain are in the main Christian whilst taking account of" other religious traditions.
That advice was subsequently enlarged upon in a letter of advice dated 18 March from the Department of Education to local education authorities, which said:
The fact that the religious traditions in Great Britain are in the main Christian would in most cases be properly reflected by devoting most attention to Christianity".
Section 8(3) was passed by the House on an unwhipped vote by a majority of 274.
If agreed syllabuses are to be appropriate and in line with the law, it seems to me that the way in which they are drawn up must also be in line with the law. I welcome what the Government have done through their amendments to the Bill, but I would like to ensure that, when we talk about Christianity and other denominations and religions, committee A takes cognisance of the appropriate proportion of the religious make-up of the area. That would allow minority religions to be represented, yet appropriate status and appropriate numbers would be afforded to Christian traditions in the area. Too often those committees do not reflect the Christian traditions of an area.
In South Tyneside committee A contained two Muslims and one Roman Catholic, despite the fact that in South Tyneside Roman Catholics outnumbered all other Christian religions put together. In Hounslow there were nine non-Christians on the committee and only four Christians. In Newham there were nine non-Christians and only three Christians. In Oxford and Coventry Christians were outnumbered, despite the fact that in those areas it is plain and obvious that Christianity is the predominant religion of most people.
The same is true for the SACREs. Our amendment would ensure that the representation on committee A of SACREs would reflect the Christian and non-Christian make-up of an area. The National Curriculum Council tells us that one third of local education authorities have more non-Christians than Christians on their SACREs. That does not reflect the religious make-up of those areas.
No fewer than half the committees involved in drawing up the 36 new syllabuses that have been produced since 1989 contained more non-Christians than Christians. Small wonder that the Free Church Federal Council says that the membership of many local education authorities' committees do not represent the make-up of the religious affiliations of the area.
That is why our amendments refer to "reasonable proportion". That is not so specific as to be always sending cases on the exact numbers through the courts, nor to exclude minority religions, but it would at least give Christian religions the kind of predominance which in most, although not all, cases would be required by the religious make-up of the area.
Agreed syllabuses are important and it is important to monitor them and to ensure that they are rigorous. Teachers in individual schools are required by law—under the Education Acts 1944 and 1988—to teach according to the agreed syllabuses. It is therefore very disappointing to hear of a report from the National Curriculum Council described in The Sunday Times, but not yet published, although I have asked the chairman of the National Curriculum Council to publish it because it is a matter of great legitimate public interest. The report shows that the law is effectively being broken on the requirements of the 1988 Act vis-à-vis the agreed syllabuses by every new syllabus that has been drawn up by agreed syllabus conferences since 1989.
Indeed, The Sunday Times quoted Margaret Morrissey of the National Confederation of Parent Teacher Associations as saying of the 1988 Act:
There's always the danger that
the fact that religious traditions in Britain are in the main Christian and that that should be reflected in the agreed syllabus is
interpreted so broadly that it's hardly religious education any more".
That is one reason why in too many of our schools religious education has effectively disappeared.
I find it disturbing that the leaked report of which I have had sight says:
no syllabus could be said to be meeting the full legal requirements for RE as interpreted by Counsel in 1991"—
subsequent to the 1980 Act
The absence of specified content makes it impossible in most cases to discover whether teaching based on the syllabus would give most attention to Christian traditions … None specify what proportion of teaching should be based on Christianity".


Too often we find that religious education is not being taught in practice in the classroom, but that is small wonder as the vast majority even of the revised agreed syllabuses, let alone the probably unsatisfactory agreed syllabuses that have not been revised by the other 90 or 100 local education authorities, are illegal because they do not ensure that Christianity is predominant in most areas, as it is the religion of most people in this country.
I should like the Government to do three things to rectify the problem. I hope that they will take my suggestions on board when the Bill goes to the House of Lords. First, it is crucial to have a national monitoring body to ensure that agreed syllabuses are within the law and to insist that the Government take action under their powers in the Education Act 1944 if syllabuses are outside the scope of the law. That could be done quite easily and I urge the Government to do it.
Secondly, although we need locally determined agreed syllabuses, I see no reason why there should not be a national advisory agreed syllabus. At the moment, grant-maintained schools will be able to take an agreed syllabus from any in existence throughout the country. I see no reason why we should not introduce a degree of uniformity on a voluntary basis which would mean that a local education authority, or possibly even an individual school—whether or not it is a grant-maintained school —would be able to adopt instead of its own locally agreed syllabus a national agreed syllabus if that were most appropriate for its needs.
8.30 pm
Finally, I understand that the National Curriculum Council will be issuing guidelines in the near future. We need a limit laid down by law on the number of religions that can be taught within an agreed syllabus to stop the plethora of religions in certain agreed syllabuses producing an exercise in comparative religion rather than religious education.

Mr. David Alton: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. Is not the crux of the matter that the issue is not taken seriously enough and far too often it is left to a disconsolate art teacher to lead yet another chorus of "Lord of the Dance" to a group of despondent students who know that he does not believe? There is no interest in what he is saying and no communication of the values that he does not espouse anyway. Therefore, there must be a more professional approach and real belief should be at the heart of faith-oriented teaching.

Mr. Coombs: I could not agree more with the hon. Gentleman. Some 51 per cent. of people who teach religious education have no qualifications, whether primary or secondary, to do so. That could be part of the problem and more resources may be needed.
I was going to mention new clause 13, but I am aware that other hon. Members wish to speak. If the Government take up the measure that I have suggested and, most important, take seriously the appalling findings of the National Curriculum Council in that every single authority seems to be flouting the law as laid down in the Education Act 1988, there will be great advantages to religious education to the benefit of the spiritual and moral development of our children.

Mr. Michael Alison: May I preface what I hope will be a short speech by once again thanking my right

hon. Friend the Secretary of State and my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary for the enormously flexible, sensitive and constructive way in which they have listened to representations from those of us with a particular interest in religious education? They have shown sympathy for it and have done everything possible, without any preconceived notions or bureaucratic pressure, to help us forward. We are very much in their debt, as are a large number of people outside the Chamber.
I shall briefly address a fairly narrow point arising on amendment No. 124, which relates to inspections in denominational schools delivering denominational education. I put down a brief marker, because it is possible that my right hon. Friend will see fit to pursue the matter further in another place. It is not entirely satisfactory that schools which supply denominational education, for example, Roman Catholic or Church of England schools, will have two separate obligatory school inspections. One is carried out by the inspector appointed by the denominational schools' own governors directed narrowly and exclusively at the religious education curriculum and its teaching in the classroom under that narrow head. The second inspection is by an outside inspector appointed by Ofsted directed at the school's spiritual and moral development and the provision of the schools' collective worship.
It is bizarre, prima facie, that two separate inspections in more or less watertight compartments should be conducted in the same school. Its rather like having two ticket inspectors travelling on my train to York every week, one to examine whether I have a valid ticket and the other to decide whether I really need to go to York at all. It is unsatisfactory to have two separate inspectors conducting disconnected inspections.
I hope that my right hon. Friend will appreciate how unnatural and artificial it is to separate religious education—the narrow technical teaching of the curriculum subject—under one inspectorate appointed by the governors, from the inspection of the spiritual and moral development of the children and the provision of collective worship under Ofsted inspectors.
I shall illustrate how unnatural it is, because religious education in a denominational school goes far wider than the instruction of the elements of a particular faith. Spiritual and moral development, which is to be inspected by a separate, outside, possibly secular humanist inspector, in the case of a child in a denominational school, will and should encompass a specific commitment to the Christian faith. That is what is involved by definition in a denominational school. A child's moral progress must, by definition, represent moral progress towards the attainment, recognition and approval of Christian moral standards, particularly in the realm of sexual morality.
For example, the religious education in a denominational school, spilling over into spiritual and moral development, may explain to a child that a real Christian commitment means accepting the moral inadmissibility of homosexual acts or pre-marital or extra-marital heterosexual activity. It means subscribing to the sanctity of human life in regard to abortion and euthanasia, for example. That could be part of the teaching in a denominational school.
The second Ofsted inspector, a secular humanist perhaps, appointed from outside the school, may say that that spiritual and moral education is bigoted, dangerously


narrow, fundamentalist, manipulative, exclusive, intolerant, rigid and biased. One can imagine such a report from a secular inspector concerned with the moral and spiritual education of children which is delivered to children put into a denominational school by their parents with a view to their being taught Christianity and led into a commitment to it. Thus the result could be an inspection that is abrasive, inimical and repudiatory to the spiritual and moral standards being taught in that denominational school.
In conclusion, I turn to collective worship. The Ofsted inspector may be an admirable man or woman, fully in sympathy with the Christian faith, but then again, the individual concerned may not. Only the school governors' appointed inspector can by definition be sympathetic to the Christian faith.
I draw hon. Members' attention to what Monsignor McHugh, the diocesan director of religious education in the diocese of Birmingham, had to say about collective worship:
The problem with using the yardstick of 'educational value' is that this is not what worship is primarily about. Therefore, using educational criteria to judge the value of worship can only be acceptable to the degree that it is accepted by the inspectorate that this is to use criteria only distantly related to the activity being inspected, even if it is taking place in an educational setting. Worship is not undertaken primarily for educational reasons—we do not celebrate Mass in order to educate ourselves, but to thank God, to listen to his Word and to join ourselves to his sacrificial redemptive offering. We do not pray in order to educate ourselves: we pray because we want to adore and praise God, to thank him, to confess our sins and to ask his help. There can be an educational spin-off to worship, of course, but education is not the primary purpose of worship. And so worship which is educationally poor may nonetheless be good worship; while worship that is educationally rich may be poor quality worship.
To what extent will the Ofsted inspector be able to tread sensitively and properly in the very specialised area of denominational education? My right hon. Friend must consider seriously whether he can at least reach a compromise on the matter by extending the remit of the school inspector appointed by the governors, who is at present limited to the RE dimension, so that his remit runs part passu with the remit of the Ofsted inspectors so that he or she can cover the other areas that have to be inspected, such as moral, spiritual, ethical and social education, and collective worship.
There would then be two parallel inspectorates going into denominational schools. Parents looking at the different reports would be able to pick the one in which they had most confidence. That compromise is a reasonable way forward. I hope that my right hon. Friend will consider it sympathetically and that he will table amendments in another place to give effect to this proper concern.

Mr. Enright: It is always difficult for politicians to talk about personal beliefs and then to attempt to legislate for them. We are left with many dilemmas, not least because each of us has different beliefs, although we may all be Christians. There are, of course, differing beliefs between the differing religions.
I shall talk mainly about voluntary-aided schools from a Catholic perspective because that is where my experience

principally lies, although I taught religion eight periods a day, five days a week for six months in a state school, which gave me some experience in that area.
Voluntary-aided schools are a minefield for religious education. Many starving Irish people emigrated to this country. When they came here, they wished to protect their culture and their religion. The Catholic voluntary-aided schools were built on the pennies and halfpennies of washerwomen, tram drivers and navvies—working-class people who were poor by any standards but who were proud enough to say, "We want our culture, but we also want our culture to be within the community." That proud tradition continues.
This very week, I received a plea from my old school, St. Josephs's Roman Catholic junior and infant school in Pontefract. The school has been given the go-ahead for some new building, and I thank the Department for Education for that. The letter asked for my help in an appeal to cover the school's share of the capital costs so that it could remain independent. When I think of the sacrifices made by my great-grandparents, my grandparents and my parents to keep those voluntary-aided schools going, I am only too happy to give a reasonable amount for the sake of generations to come because I am part of the Catholic community and I am part of the Pontefract community.
8.45 pm
Catholic schools were set up in the community, sometimes in conjunction with the school boards and sometimes ahead of the school boards. All primary education sprang up at a local level because it was important at that level. Tammany hall prefigured much of that. When we had direct elections for school boards locally, people had 10 or 11 votes, depending on how many places there were on the board. As Catholics, we knew our way around that so we gave our 10 or 11 votes to the same person. Catholics regularly came top of the poll, which meant that there was always one Catholic on the board. It is not quite like that with the standing advisory councils on religion these days. There was one powerful Catholic voice.
Out of those school boards arose self-assurance and, importantly, assimilation into society. It was a slow and gradual process, but it was because Catholics were able to have their own voluntary-aided schools that they were able to gain the confidence to enter the local community and local politics. We shall never forget that it was the local communities, which ultimately became the local education authorities, which gave us assistance in doing that. We have a residual loyalty which it is important to remember. The history of people who emigrate is important to them. In this case, that history is certainly cherished.
There we are, secure in our schools and willing to pay the price to remain not completely independent—certainly complying with the community but having the crucial ability to control what we are doing in our education in moral and religious terms. If we throw that away for grant-maintained status, which is often suggested, we shall throw away an important tradition. That is why Bishop Konstant has urged against schools becoming grant maintained. I do not wish to caricature the issue by implying that if a Catholic school decides to go grant maintained, we in the Catholic community will throw it to


the wolves. We shall certainly not do that. It is our duty, as it is the duty of the Labour party, to look after every child who is being educated.
We are now considering what is meant in terms of religious education and in terms of the moral background of the schools. It is extremely important that we belong to the diocesan family. I use the phrase "diocesan family" deliberately because within the Catholic Church—this is little realised—devolution is important. We talk much about Maastricht and about moving downwards, as it were. Indeed, the word that is used for that is not political but comes from the Vatican, suggesting that deep down in the diocese, in the devolved situation, that responsibility lies.
The family of diocesan schools must cling together. One must support the other, and within the voluntary-aided —the Catholic—system that is crucial. We look on our schools not as the property of the parents who happen to have children attending them at the time, but as part of the whole community—an aspect that is important not only to Catholic schools, but to all state schools.
We are responding to the needs of the Catholic community in specific areas, so we can sacrifice one for the other in that, because there are difficulties in, say, Bradford, we in Pontefract can pay more, or perhaps because they have difficulty recruiting religious teachers in Leeds, we in Hemsworth can provide them with that religious teaching and the training that goes with it. We can follow the same exercise for sacred music and examining the liturgy.
That is important to us, but it is equally important in the Catholic tradition that there should be consultation with other schools. There was a great deal of religious bigotry. Visit Pontefract and see a church that was built at the time when Catholics were still unable to vote. That church was built on a hill behind a peak so that it could not be seen by the good burghers of Pontefract, who might otherwise have stoned it. We have come out of that ghetto situation. It was a deliberate decision which led us out of the ghetto to talk to the local schools, including schools with Anglican origins as well as those with simply state origins. That informal association and co-operation is important. But, above all, we are asserting our Catholic identity in a Christian community.
It is a stated principle passed down by the diocesan education commission that, whatever we do, we must not recruit from abroad or try to steal pupils from other schools. That is important and is clearly laid down. It is also clearly laid down that we must look to the disadvantaged and those with special needs—that we go out into the community to recruit, as it were, those sections of society because we believe that they belong preciously to the overall society that makes up our schools. We wish to give them our values, including our values of religious education, and we say that unashamedly.
Much can be said about the standing advisory committees on religious education. Anyone who contributes to a SACRE or takes part in its deliberations—immediately before I came to this place I was a member of the Wakefield SACRE, so I know something of its workings—appreciates that it is a question not whether one person can outvote another in a SACRE, but of coming together in Christian and religious co—operation.
Although we have only a small Muslim community in Wakefield metropolitan district, it has been important for us to understand that community. It is important from our

Christian viewpoint, not because we wish to be tolerant of it—that is a demeaning attitude to take—but because we have a strong desire to understand it. Other religions can enrich us as we can enrich them.
If we are part of a SACRE, we should accept the consequences of the SACRE. In other words, we must accept the agreed syllabus, and there is something wrong about the Bill when it says that a grant-maintained school can enter an agreement with a SACRE but can withdraw from the results of it. It is cynical to say, "I am taking part in these deliberations, but I reserve my right to go elsewhere in the end."

Lady Olga Maitland: Will the hon. Gentleman explain why SACREs do not approve religious education syllabuses which comply with the Education Act 1988 and which, in the main, should be Christian? Far too many syllabuses are not complying with that, which is why, according to a MORI poll, 44 per cent. of school leavers leave school without a proper understanding of what happened even on Easter day.

Mr. Enright: While I do not necessarily accept the hon. Lady's statistics, I agree that what she says is a fair reflection of the way in which society is operating today. The hon. Lady has in previous debates referred to the case of a mother who wrote to her saying that her 11-year-old child could not recite the Our Father. I would be ashamed if my children could not recite the Our Father, but I claim that the present state of affairs in that respect has nothing to do with the schools but has to do with the family. Religion initially comes from the family, and we look to the schools to enhance the intellectualism of religion.
The hon. Member for Wyre Forest (Mr. Coombs) said that we must look to the law. I am worried about that because I remember distinctly what Christ said about the scribes and the Pharisees and the law. If we look to the law in that way, we shall kill the spirit of religion.

Mr. Julian Brazier: Not only is ignorance of Christianity widespread, but it is extraordinary that, although a recent opinion poll showed that about half t he people in Britain regard themselves as Christian and only about 4 per cent. adhere to other religions, we can have SACREs in which Christians are in a minority. No wonder there is such widespread ignorance and, hence, the amendments that are before the House.

Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that. I have looked at the syllabuses available from SACREs. It does not matter who is represented on SACREs. What matters is the syllabus that emerges at the end, and I know that there is no such syllabus which affects either the Catholic or the Anglican teaching of religion.

Mr. Boswell: As I shall not be able to reply to the debate, perhaps I may take this opportunity to say that I will reflect seriously on the points made by hon. Members on both sides of the House, particularly in relation to SACREs and the implications of inspection as raised by my right hon. and hon. Friends in their amendments. It will be impossible to discuss them further today, but we shall reflect on them before the Bill proceeds to the other place.

Mr. Enright: I am grateful to the Minister. It is a shame that, as a result of the guillotine, we could not discuss the matter properly in Committee. That is one of the consequences of the way in which we proceed.
I would also like SACREs to conduct their business in public. That is most important. With my dying gasp, I point out to the right hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Alison) that the whole of education is seamless. It is impossible to separate history, English, biology and physics from religious education and worship. Among other things, worship is educational: it is through worship that people are brought out in spirit. I believe that passionately, and it is important to state it here.
The three points that the hon. Member—

It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, That the amendment be made:—

Question agreed to.

MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then put the Questions on all remaining amendments moved by a member of the Government.

Amendments made: No. 152, in page 205, line 34, at end insert—

'The Education Act 1946 (c. 50)

In the First Schedule to the Education Act 1946 (maintenance of voluntary schools), in paragraph 2, for "section one hundred and three of the principal Act" there is substituted "section [Grants by Secretary of State in respect of aided and special agreement schools] of the Education Act 1993'.
No. 153, in page 206, line 31, at end insert—

'The Education Act 1967 (c. 3)

Section 1 of the Education Act 1967 (extended powers of Secretary of State to make contributions etc.) is omitted'. No. 135, in page 210, line 28, at end insert—

'The Representation of the People Act 1983 (c. 2)

In paragraph 22(1)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Representation of the People Act 1983 (use of schools for the purpose of taking a poll) after "authority" there is inserted ", a grant-maintained school".'

No. 141, in page 210, line 34, leave out '4' and insert '4(1) (a)'.

No. 142, in page 210, line 40, at end insert.

'or (Approval of premises of maintained or grant-maintained special schools)'.

No. 136, in page 213, line 10, at end insert—
'. In section 9(7) (parent of boarder at maintained school requesting access to particular worship or religious education) after "particular" there is inserted "religion or".
In section 11(4)(a) (standing advisory councils on religious education) for "and other religious denominations" there is substituted "denominations and other religions and denominations of such religions".
In section 13 (advisory councils: supplementary provisions) in subsections (1), (2) and (7)(b) before "denomination", in each place, there is inserted "religion,".' —[ Mr. Boswell.]

Schedule 18

REPEALS

Amendments made: No. 82, in page 221, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—

'Section 1(1)'.

No. 154, in page 221, line 10, column 3, at end insert—
'Sections 102 and 103.
In section 105(2), paragraph (d) and, in the words following that paragraph, "maintenance contribution".'.

No. 155, in page 221, line 14, at end insert—
'1946 c. 50. The Education Act 1946. In Part II of the Second Schedule, the entry relating to section 102 of the Education Act 1944.
1953 c. 33. The Education (Miscellaneous Provision) Act 1953. Section 8(1).
1959 c. 60, The Education Act 1959. The whole Act'.

No. 156, in page 221, line 15, at end insert—
'1967 c. 3. The Education Act 1967. Section 1'.

No. 157, in page 221, line 16, column 3, at end insert
'In Schedule 1, paragraph 4'.

No. 158, in page 221, line 22, at end insert—
'1975 c. 2. The Education Act 1975 The whole Act'.

No. 159, in page 221, line 49, column 3, at end insert
In schedule 1, in paragraph 1(2) "102", paragraph 12, in paragraph 21 "(1) and" and paragraphs 22 and 23'.

No. 160, in page 221, line 52, column 3, at end insert—
'In Schedule 3, paragraphs 4 and 13'.—[Mr. Boswell.]

Order for Third Reading read.

Mr. Patten: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
The House has now debated the Bill for more than 160 hours on the Floor of the House and in Committee. The combination of two days' debate on Report and a two-day Second Reading debate is unprecedented for any education Bill in the history of the House, but it is fully justified. I am sure that whatever else may divide the House, we should agree about that.
The Bill is the longest education Bill ever—now 268 clauses. We made important additions to it in Committee. First, we gave special schools the important new freedom to apply for grant-maintained status. Secondly, by requiring governing bodies to consider grant-maintained status annually, we will ensure that parents are given every opportunity and every reason to make their voice heard on grant-maintained matters.

Mr. Bowis: May I tempt my right hon. Friend to take one more step towards local education authorities which


see the point of the Bill and support grant-maintained schools? Will he give them the right—it is right and proper that he should—to encourage the holding of ballots in schools in their areas?

Mr. Patten: I will certainly reflect carefully on that suggestion. It strikes me as likely that, in the next few years, a number of progressive and forward-looking local authorities will wish to encourage schools in their areas to go grant-maintained. I shall look carefully at the provision of clause 30 and, having reflected, perhaps move to have the matter considered further in the other place.

Mr. Patrick Thompson: My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis) mentioned ballots. Does not my right hon. Friend agree that the balloting process takes too long, and that there is concern about that?

Mr. Patten: It is right that there should be proper debate about whether a school or a group or a cluster of schools should move towards grant-maintained status. We have already done our best to shorten the ballot period, which seems unnecessarily long. I shall reflect carefully on the interesting suggestion of my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, North (Mr. Thompson) that we should make the balloting period as short as is consistent with free and open public debate. Having reflected on that matter. I may well urge my noble Friend Baroness Blatch to reflect on it further in the other place.
Clause 150 will allow local education authorities to continue to make available services relating to special educational needs. I have outlined three of the important additions to the Bill.
A number of amendments have been accepted and, in the past two days, we have discussed a number of amendments tabled by the Government as a result of commitments made by my hon. Friends in Committee. My hon. Friends the Members for Mid-Worcestershire (Mr. Forth) and for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), the Parliamentary Under-Secretaries of State, performed magnificently in Committee. I am about to buy a suitable new tie for my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Worcestershire to remind him of his service at that stage. I understand that, when successful football matches end, the players sometimes exchange shirts. It may be that, here, ties will be exchanged. [Interruption.] I see that there is little demand for the tie that my hon. Friend is wearing, and certainly there is none for the one being worn by the hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd).
The process has not yet finished. We are considering the responses to the exclusion proposals in the consultation document that was issued last November. It would not be right to amend the Bill further before completion of the consultation process.
I expect that we shall introduce further amendments in another place. These will ensure that we have the right mechanisms to deal with children who have been excluded from school, of whom there are too many. I want to be quite sure that, where children can be educated with their contemporaries in schools, that will happen. On the other hand, I am determined that, where this is not possible—where, for understandable reasons, control cannot be exercised in the classroom by hard-working teachers—proper arrangements will be made to provide pupils with a high-quality education and a measure of control in the community. This will be in the interests of the children

themselves, and will help to secure peace and quiet on streets and in communities. I recognise that there is a limit to what any head or classroom teacher can do.
We have listened also to requests that our proposals for groups or clusters of self-governing schools be made more flexible. We plan a number of changes to provide for this. For example, secondary schools will be allowed to become full members of groups, and we shall provide for associations of schools that will be looser than full clusters but will remain formal relationships under a scheme approved by the Secretary of State. I see these moves as important indications of our commitment to flexibility and to making self-governing status a real possibility for all schools, of whatever size, if that is the wish of parents.
The Bill puts in place the structures we need if our vision for education in the 21st century is to be made a reality. That vision is of a school system that will achieve international standards of excellence. When my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley (Mr. Baker) spoke to the House on the occasion of the Third Reading of the Education Reform Bill 1988, he compared the achievements of our 16-year-olds with the achievements of pupils in the high schools of what was then West Germany in securing certificates in foreign languages, maths and the language of their own country.
At that time, less than 40 per cent. of English 16-year-olds attained qualifications equivalent to those of their West German counterparts. The figure is now 55 per cent. This is a measure of the improvement over the past five years, thanks to the national curriculum and to a regime of regular testing, for which I pay tribute to my right hon. Friend the Member for Mole Valley.
We can be confident that we are very much on the right track. Just a few years ago, only four out of 10 of our young people stayed in part-time or full-time education after the age of 16. The proportion is now between six and seven out of 10, and I predict that by 1996—by the time of the next general election—it will have reached eight out of 10. This will help the young people themselves to be happier and more fulfilled human beings, as well as helping the country.
A key element of future success will lie in giving schools the freedom to respond fully to their pupils' needs, to manage their own affairs and to raise their standards. We look forward with increasing confidence to a system of self-governing schools, each offering parents something slightly different within the framework of the national curriculum. We look forward to a system in which each school can play to its strengths, sometimes involving increased specialisation, competing both with other schools and with what it achieved the year before, enjoying the greatest possible autonomy, and accountable to the greatest degree to parents and pupils.
Finally, I want to thank all the hard-working teachers and governors who run the schools in this country for what they do for our children. I repeat my commitment to excellence across the education system. I want every school to realise the full potential of every child which it educates. Nothing less than that will do. Nothing less will guarantee our international economic competitiveness and our national, social and moral cohesion. I commend the Bill to the House.

Mrs. Ann Taylor: Hon. Members were not surprised that the Secretary of State was in his usual arrogant, boastful mood this evening. He boasted about the number of hours spent on the Bill. Of course, he was not present during most of those hours, because he was absent from the Committee. He boasted about the size of the Bill, as though he wanted to get into "The Guinness Book of Records" on size, but size is not everything.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said that the Secretary of State's speech was more like a Second Reading speech than a Third Reading speech. Even at this late stage, the Secretary of State is having to confess that there are new problems which he has not thought through, and that amendments will have to be considered in another place. On Second Reading, Labour Members said that this was a bad Bill. In Committee and on Report, the Bill was made even worse, mainly because of the constant interference in terms of giving more powers to the Secretary of State.
Clearly, the Bill's theme has been to concentrate power in education in the hands of the Secretary of State. That is what is wrong with the Bill. It is wrong because it is not what is best for education, and it is wrong in terms of democratic accountability, especially when the Secretary of State takes such pride in not listening to teachers, whom he had the gall to praise a moment ago, and parents, whom he insulted with descriptions such as "neanderthal".
Time and again, the Secretary of State has chosen to grab more power. In many ways, the grabbing of power by the Secretary of State has highlighted some of the weaknesses in his argument and the failure of his policies, especially the precious grant-maintained policy. Grant-maintained schools have not mushroomed in Labour authorities, as the Government predicted. Instead, most grant-maintained schools are in Tory education areas. Clearly, if opting out is a sign of dissatisfaction with local authorities, parents have a higher level of dissatisfaction with Conservative authorities than with Labour ones.
The Secretary of State cannot face the decisions of parents and the fact that more then 24,000 schools are not even considering becoming grant maintained. He has decided to force governing bodies to discuss grant-maintained status each year. That says so much for his trust and respect of governors. He will have power to declare a ballot void if he chooses. That says so much for trusting the judgment of parents.
Clearly, when schools become grant maintained, they will not be opting out of local authority control. They will be opting in to centralised political control under the Secretary of State.

Mr. Bob Dunn: If the hon. Lady was Secretary of State for Education and wanted to close grammar schools in my constituency of Dartford, and if the people of Dartford voted in a referendum not to have those schools closed, what would she do? Would she keep them open or close them?

Mrs. Taylor: The idea that we are now to have a referendum in Dartford is a new one. I would be happy, if I were Secretary of State for Education—I am glad that the hon. Gentleman anticipates that—to seek to improve the opportunities for every child in Britain. I would not segregate children into successes and failures. I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising that issue. In

Committee, one of the few occasions on which Tory Back-Bench Members spoke was when selection was discussed. That is their hidden agenda. They do not want to talk about it, but selection is one of the objectives of the Bill.
The Secretary of State has often said that he is proud of the Bill, and that he will be a tough Secretary of State. But we cannot trust him with the powers in the Bill, not least because he is inconsistent in using his powers. He has said many times, and he repeated recently, that he intends to be tough on surplus places. He takes great pride in saying that he will be tough. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lancaster (Dame E. Kellett-Bowman) obviously approves of that.
The Secretary of State has also said, boldly and directly, that he will not allow schools to opt out to avoid closure; yet, within the past few days, he has allowed Shire Oak community school in Walsall to become grants maintained. It was due to close, as a result of rationalisation of surplus places: it is operating at 51 per cent. capacity. The Secretary of State has allowed that school to opt out. So much for his statement to the House:
I will not allow grant-maintained status to be used as a bolthole for failing schools".—[Official Report, 9 November 1992; Vol. 213, c. 651.]
That is the Secretary of State's rhetoric, but we see the decisions he makes.
Of course we must object to the use of the guillotine on the Bill. Crucial amendments have not been discussed, such as the amendment—

Mr. Patrick Cormack: Will the hon. Lady give way?

Mrs. Taylor: There is no time, I am sorry. [Interruption.] I am sure that the hon. Gentleman understands that, because of the guillotine, there is not time to give way as much as I would normally do. I hope that he will listen to the point that I am about to make, because I am sure that he will be interested in it. I hope that Ministers will listen too.
I wish to give an example of the serious.and important amendments which should have been discussed during the passage of the Bill and have been ignored as a result of what has happened. [Interruption.] If the Minister will control his Parliamentary Private Secretary, we might have a debate.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I do not know that the discipline in this class is as good as it might be.

Mrs. Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker. I am sure that you will have noticed where that indiscipline was coming from.

Dame Elaine Kellett-Bowman: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. Is it in order on Third Reading for the hon. Lady to discuss an amendment which was not called?

Madam Deputy Speaker: It is usual to talk about what is in the Bill, rather than what is not.

Mrs. Taylor: I am sure that that is the case, but it is rather strange that the Secretary of State had to announce that he would consider so many new issues at a later stage.
One of the amendments that Madam Speaker selected, but on which discussion was not allowed, was suggested to me by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty


to Children. It related to the responsibilities of grant-maintained schools and their failure to allow, in one case, a teacher to go to court to give evidence in a child abuse case because the school said that it could not afford to provide cover. Grant-maintained schools are not under the same obligation as local authority schools to release teachers in such circumstances, which is the sort of anomaly and serious problem that we should have been discussing.
The Secretary of State has shown us his priorities. Even as amended, the Bill does nothing to tackle the real education issues that face us: underfunding, which has caused schools in Tory-controlled Enfield to say that they cannot guarantee full-time education for all pupils next year; the cuts, which are challenging the very existence of nursery education in many areas; and the Government's total lack of commitment to nursery education.
The Bill does nothing to help those parents who are bewildered by the constant chopping and changing in the curriculum, the teachers who have had to administer discredited tests, or the governors who have to hold jumble sales to buy books.
The Bill does not deal with the important problem of class sizes—no doubt because the junior Minister said yesterday that he does not think that they are important. The Government's obsession with grant-maintained status and the market comes before everything else. This is a bad Bill, which will damage our children's educational opportunities and concentrate too much power in the hands of the Secretary of State and Opposition Members will oppose it.

Mr. George Walden: May I resume the speech that I began yesterday, Madam Deputy Speaker? The Official Report states:

Mr. George Walden: I welcome the new clause as I welcome the Bill. Far from doing what the hon.
Member for Wallsend (Mr. Byers)"—
I am glad to see him in his place—
and other members of the Opposition parties have alleged, the new clause will introduce a more equitable distribution of powers between the Government and the councils—
It being Six o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER, pursuant to Order [15 December] and Resolution this day, put the Question".— [0fficial Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 179.]
New clause 22 is obviously the most important clause in the Bill and it will bring about a more equitable distribution of power between the Government, councils and schools. Everyone failed to realise that, as Lenin once said, it was a case of
all power to the soviets"—
soviets meaning the councils. Previously all power resided in the councils. The Department of Education and Science had minimal powers. Anyone who contests that should look closely at its shoddy, substandard 1960s building, which mirrors the shoddy, substandard educational standards that have reigned in Britain since that time. The building contained only a small number of officials because all the power resided with the councils and none in London or with the schools.

Dr. Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Walden: I shall certainly do so when I have finished this point.
Clause 22 redistributes power equitably, more towards the centre, and is the most important provision in the Bill.
Why should more power go to the centre? Because that is necessary to control devolution of power to the schools, leaving some powers in the middle, with the councils. From that point of view, the Bill seems fair and equitable.

Dr. Wright: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Walden: I am being urged by my hon. Friends not to give way. I had better not as I have a lot to get through.
Unfortunately, I have to criticise my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, as there is a major contradiction in the clause that I have just lauded.
Clause 22 states that the Secretary of State will encourage
diversity and increasing opportunities for choice.
Given the present climate in Britain, that is nonsense. Some 86 per cent. of our schools are comprehensive. Therefore, the realistic choice and diversity—even with grant-maintained schools—for normal parents will be either to send their children to a comprehensive school, with all that that means in terms of the philosophy of education, or to pay for them to get out of the system, which I do. I do not agree with the philosophy governing comprehensive education in this country. But those of us who can afford to opt out of the system are few and far between for financial reasons.
Therefore, there is a major contradiction as—[Interruption.] I am about to make my argument; hon. Members must wait. In reality, the choice is between a public school, which with its expensive fees is totally inaccessible to most people in this country, and the dogma of comprehensive education. Therefore—here is my argument—I should like my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to amalgamate the perfectly reasonable powers in new clause 22 with another part of the Bill dealing with the technology schools initiative and introduce in this country, where possible, a diversity of types of school to give us a more continental and far more successful system with genuine choice and excellence. It would include selection by aptitude, of which they are riot afraid on the continent.
If one is born to a low-income family on the continent, one has a damn sight more opportunity to get on in society than we do in our class-obsessed country, which has given rise to the comprehensive system, the whole ethos of which is to keep down standards for everyone.

Hon. Members: Nonsense.

Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. It is reaching a point where I cannot hear the words of the hon. Member who has the Floor—[HON. MEMBERS: "He is speaking rubbish."] That may be a matter of opinion, but the tradition of the House is that hon. Members allow others to speak even when they disagree with them—a tradition that I intend to maintain. Hon. Members who indulge in too many sedentary interventions may find it difficult to catch my eye when they wish to speak formally.

Mr. Walden: I should be horrified if you, Madam Deputy Speaker, missed anything that I had to say as I believe it to be true.
Comprehensives have failed—[Interruption.] I quote Professor A. H. Halsey, from last week, not yesterday. The professor wobbles around like a Russian doll and scares the hell out of the Opposition when he does. But he never


quite falls over and assures us that he is an ethical socialist. What is so ethical about condemning generations of people from low-income families in this country to low expectations in education, which is what Professor Halsey and Opposition Members have done? I know what I am talking about as I went through the state system—and when I was not in a comfortable financial position.
I am keen that we should raise the sights of people in this country so that they come closer to approaching the ambitions of those on the continent, where I have personal experience. At present, under the comprehensive system we have a system of institutionalised mediocrity. When we talk about the state of our young, and the state of law and order, Opposition Members, including the Labour Front Bench home affairs spokesman, the hon. Member for Sedgefield (Mr. Blair), should consider whether comprehensive schools, with their lax academic and disciplinary expectations, have done anything to contribute to law and order. Let us have an honest debate on the subject, not merely a tactical one.
My practical message for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is that, when he is considering applications for grant-maintained schools, he should encourage applications under the technology schools initiative to produce a genuine diversity of types of schools for people, particularly from low-income families, in the cities, so that those children have the same effective choice that well-to-do children have.
I do not believe that, because people live in inner cities, they should not learn, say, the classics. I do not believe that that should be the effective preserve, as it is at the moment, of people with money who can afford to go to private schools, which is the reality. They should have the option of going to an acadmically demanding grammar-type school based on aptitude.
There should also be, as on the continent—the more advanced and more enligthened continent—high-grade technology schools,, expensively well equipped, my right hon. Friend must note, for children whose aptitudes lie in another direction. Those children deserve the effective choice that people who happen to be born to more well-to-do families in effect have.
That brings me to the second point, which has been extremely well covered by my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). I do not understand, and have never understood, the Government's attitude to nursery education. The social reality is that people such as myself who are not rich but have a bit of money buy nursery education for our children. We do that for two reasons. First, it gives them a head start. We do not need studies to know that. We know that that is true. Secondly, it gives my wife, not to speak of myself, a little more free time than we might otherwise have.
So let us not have studies about nursery education. Let us get on with nursery education for everyone, not just for people with money. Besides being obviously educationally beneficial, besides being useful for wives—most of them —who deserve more free time, nursery education, as common, ordinary, sensible people know, helps to get the children early, at the age of two or three, so that they stand a much greater chance of not ending up in the juvenile court.
Under the nursery regime, which does not mirror the mistaken permissiveness of the 1960s but is a serious, organised educational regime, in which something is expected of the child in terms of social behaviour and in terms of beginning to know how to learn, even at the age of three, not only will society be helped but the present abysmally low expectations in primary schools in this self-congratulatory country of ours will be boosted, as they will be in the secondary schools.
One day we may even get ourselves to the level where we can safely expand our A-levels in the way that they should be expanded without diluting them across the board in the way in which the education industry would like to do today.
For all those reasons, I recommend to the Government that, irrespective of party political points of view, nursery education has become a socially as well as an educationally vital issue in Britain. If Liverpool does not demonstrate that, I do not know what it does demonstrate.
Finally, you will be glad to hear, Madam Speaker, it would be irresponsible for any hon. Member to make the sort of intervention that I have made with all its cost implications without saying from where the money will come. I have told my right hon. Friend that to have genuine diversity of schools he will have to spend a lot more on the technology colleges. They must be well equipped. They must be centres of hope in the deprived areas of the country.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: All schools should be.

Mr. Walden: Agreed. They must look good. They have to recruit highly qualified, difficult-to-get teachers in physics, maths and the fairly rare and highly skilled technologies. All that costs money. Nursery schools cost money. I have been given a figure of fl billion and it will probably turn out to be more. We do not have that money because we are £50 billion in debt, so we must get it from the public.
I hope that Labour Members will listen carefully, because wisely—I commend the Leader of the Opposition for this—Labour has established a commission to examine universal benefits. I can identify one universal benefit from which billions of pounds could be saved, although some of my right hon. and hon. Friends might not like it. I have gone on for many years about mortgage tax relief and I seem to be getting somewhere with that argument, but let us look now at child benefit, which is indiscriminately flashed around the middle classes. The women, they tell me, like to get it—

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman is straying far from the purpose of the Third Reading debate, which is to discuss the contents of the Bill. Benefits are not among them.

Mr. Walden: I am sure that you, Madam Speaker, agree that it would be remiss and irresponsible of me to talk about the technology schools initiative and nursery education, which are in the Bill, and to make recommendations involving Government expenditure, without briefly explaining where that money is to come from—

Madam Speaker: Order. It would be irresponsible of the hon. Gentleman if he did not allow other right hon. and hon. Members to participate in the debate.

Hon. Members: Hear, hear.

Mr. Walden: For that reason if no other, Madam Speaker—because I see that I am causing a little consternation among Opposition Members—I will sit down, having said that the major changes that I recommended should be explained to the country frankly. It should be explained that they will cost money and that that money should come from curtailing the universal handout of child benefit to the middle classes—to the middle-income groups. It should be explained that the money will be returned to education, because there can be no better benefit to all our children—particularly deprived children—than spending money on education.

Dr. Wright: Unlike the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), I shall be brief.
Ever since the White Paper that led to the Bill first appeared, I have been searching for its meaning. What did it mean? What does it mean to make legislation in this way? What does it mean to offer consultation, yet not to consult? What does it mean to drive through proposals without consultation? What does it mean to ask for advice but not to take it? What does it mean to deny a level playing field when people ask for one?
What does it mean when people who express proper concerns about the education service—as people in Staffordshire have done in respect of the music service, which other hon. Members mentioned, and many other services—are simply turned away with mutterings about "producers' interests"?
What is meant by some or all the most surreal moments we have experienced? In yesterday's debate, we were told of a retired headmaster in Chelmsford who was supposed to have committed the most heinous crime of distributing leaflets giving his views about an opt-out proposal.

Mr. Simon Burns: Clearly the hon. Gentleman has not seen the leaflet and does not understand the situation in Chelmsford, and I am sure that he would not want to mislead the House. The reasons that teachers at the school in question were so outraged was that the leaflet was patently untrue and dishonest in the way that it tried to con parents into believing something.

Dr. Wright: The hon. Gentleman has made my point for me: he did not like the arguments in that leaflet. This is an important point: it tells us a good deal about the kind of government, the kind of legislation and the kind of politics that have been created. Yesterday, the hon. Gentleman described that retired headmaser as disgusting; the Minister said that the arguments were intimidating. In a free society, a retired headmaster was described as disgusting and intimidating because he had had the temerity to distribute some leaflets. He did that because he felt that there was a threat to the education service to which he had devoted his life. That is the kind of response that we get from this Government.
Anyway, there I was, searching for the meaning of the Bill sensing that it had something to do with the Government's ideological mission, and then discovering that the Government's determination to destroy local education authorities was given far more priority than any interest in what was happening to the service that those authorities were delivering. That has become abundantly clear as we have asked questions about specific aspects of

the Bill, and have received no answer except "Somehow, the market will provide". We are talking about libraries, orchestras, and all the other services that affect the quality of life. We are told that that does not matter; somehow, the market will provide.
There I was, searching for the meaning of the Bill. Eventually, I found it—courtesy, as it happens, of the hon. Member for Buckingham: the outcome could not have been more fortuitous. It so happens that the hon. Gentleman followed the maiden speech that I made some months ago, and advised me to read a book—[Laughter.] He obviously felt that I needed to read a book. The book in question was by Ferdinand Mount; many Conservative Members, if not Opposition Members, will know that Ferdinand Mount used to be the director of the Centre for Policy Studies, the great Thatcherite think tank. He was also editor of The Spectator, and adviser to the departed leader.
I read that book and it answered the question that I was asking—"What is this legislation about?" Ferdinand Mount had come across a lecture given by the Secretary of State to the Conservative Political Centre a year or so ago; he felt that that lecture was the epitome of the current trend of thought. I cannot resist sharing his views with the House. We have heard a good deal about—

Madam Speaker: Order. I remind the House that, on Third Reading, hon. Members must debate precisely what is contained in the Bill—not what might be in the Bill; not what is not in the Bill; but what is now in the Bill, as amended, if it has been amended. We must be precise about that; otherwise I shall have to draw the facts to the attention of all hon. Members again, and I do not want to waste any more time.

Dr. Wright: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My reason for sharing Ferdinand Mount's views with the House is that I think that I have discovered the kernel—the crystal —of the Bill, and I think that I can express it in a sentence. I am sure that it would be helpful if I did so; it would be a shame to deny the House the meaning of the Bill, as interpreted by Ferdinand Mount. He says:
the sad truth is that the terms in which Mr. Patten proceeds to discuss our political culture do not suggest that it has endowed him with that understanding of the British Constitution which would have come as second nature to a highly intelligent youngish politician of an earlier generation…'All power to Parliament' is thus Mr. Patten's cry, faintly but unnervingly reminiscent of Lenin's 'All power to the soviets'—and not without the same fraudulence, since both slogans mean in effect 'All power to the government or governing party'. What seems alien to both Lenin and Mr. Patten is the idea of dispersal of power to a variety of institutions—whether parallel, independent or subordinate.
You now see, Madam Speaker, why I wanted to share that with the House. Suddenly, all was clear. The essential meaning of the Bill is distilled in that quotation. It uses the language of choice but in reality it is about rigid centralism. That is what it is about and that is what it will be remembered for. It claims to be about education but it is about something quite different. The tragedy is that another Government will one day have to pick up its consequences.

Madam Speaker: I call Mr. Faber.

Dr. Robert Spink: I thank the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood for giving way to me.

Madam Speaker: Order. I need to be clear: has the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright) completed his speech or given way?

Dr. Wright: I have both finished and given way.

Madam Speaker: In that case, I am now in charge. I call Mr. Faber.

Mr. David Faber: I shall not follow the ranting of the hon. Member for Cannock and Burntwood (Dr. Wright), which would have been more appropriate for the Balliol junior common room than for the House.
In Committee and during the past two days, we have heard many claims by the Opposition that the Bill will somehow destroy local democracy and that it is centralising legislation. To those of us fortunate enough to have grant-maintained schools in our constituencies and to know them well, that seems an incredible suggestion as we see true local democracy at work for ourselves.
The truth is that the grant-maintained system in general and the Bill in particular helps to enhance local democracy, not destroy it. Throughout our reform process, we have sought to devolve powers to the very lowest level. Governing bodies are directly accountable to parents and to the local communities which they serve. They feel more involved and believe that the decisions they are taking matter.
The proof is that large numbers of parents are coming forward to serve as governors and are turning out in greater numbers than ever before in ballots. The average is about 60 per cent., well above that in local county council elections. We heard the latest figures for grant-maintained schools from my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State at Question Time yesterday. I shall not repeat them now.
There has been much debate in Committee and during the past couple of days on the reasons why schools opt for grant-maintained status. The Opposition spoke of bribes, but were ably answered yesterday, as always, by my hon. Friend the Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Mr. Pawsey), who said that if freedom is a bribe, bribes are indeed available. What is on offer is freedom from local education authorities, the freedom to decide the course of one's own school and the freedom as to how one's money should be spent. We are well aware of the benefits—increased pupil numbers, the freedom and ability to employ more teachers, and to improve pupil-teacher ratios, new curriculum subjects and, as I have been able to see at first hand, greater resources available for and, more important, given to special educational needs.
Above all, grant-maintained status plays a crucial role in maintaining the impetus to improve standards. GCSE grades in these schools have improved above the national average and parents are now voting to send their children there to get the best possible education for them.
In Wiltshire we are fortunate not to suffer the worst excesses of intimidation and misinformation put about in so many LEAs by opponents of grant-maintained status. However, even there, we still suffer ill-informed and inaccurate public lobbying against grant-maintained status, usually by local politicians for dogmatic rather than well-thought-out reasons and sadly, all too often, at some distance from the local school and community to which they refer. They also usually fly in the face of the recommendations of governors and head teachers.
I warmly welcome the Bill's measures to tackle any form of intimidation or misinformation, at the ballot stage and subsequently, and I also welcome the further measures announced today by my right hon. Friend.
Conservative Members sat and marvelled in Committee at the repetitive flow of socialist dogma and educationist theory that we had to put up with. We should not be surprised. After the Labour party's fourth consecutive election defeat last year, there was a brief reforming ray of light. The hon. Member for Blackburn (Mr. Straw) issued a press release on 10 June saying:
some LEAs may wish to consider local referenda among all parents to test opinion on key issues".
That sounds to me like parental ballots on opting out. The hon. Gentleman continued:
parents and governors may feel bound to make decisions about what they think is best for their school. Labour must not appear to be placed in a hostile position of opposition to such parents.
Sadly, the shutters came down all too quickly. The Labour party is again committed to abolishing grant-maintained schools and putting them back into local education authority control. At the Labour party conference last year, the hon. Member for Dewsbury (Mrs. Taylor) said:
We oppose opt-out in principle because it is wrong. It is wrong in principle for a group of parents to be able to hijack a school".
I wonder what the parents of the 236,000 children now at grant-maintained schools—the number rises daily—will feel about that. I wonder what they think of being accused of hijacking their own children's education and seeking to improve it.
I can do no better than remind the House of the words of the former leader of the Labour group on Wiltshire county council, who last year dramatically resigned from the Labour party and crossed to the Conservatives. Speaking of Labour policy on education among other subjects, he said:
The Labour Party is today, at national and local level, in a state of total confusion, quite unable to put forward ideas to meet the problems of the modern world. Many of the rank and file still cling to ideas that are twenty to thirty years out of date and show little imagination in their simple, doctrinaire slogans of political frustration.
It is this Conservative Government who are making the radical changes needed to raise standards and safeguard our children's education for the future.

Mr. Win Griffiths: I was amazed at the speech of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden), who showed a breathtaking disregard of history and of the fact that a Tory Government have been in power for the past 14 years —a Tory Government in which he played a small part. Then I discovered the reason for the hon. Gentleman's disregard of history. He had the benefit of an education at Moscow university at the height of the Stalinist comeback after Kruschev's fall. All was revealed by that knowledge.

Mr. Walden: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Griffiths: I am sorry; I have been advised that I have not enough time—and, on reflection, I have not.

Mr. Walden: rose—

Mr. Griffiths: If I could carry on—

Mr. Walden: rose—

Madam Speaker: Order. Does the hon. Member for Buckingham have a point of order?

Mr. Walden: Yes, Madam Speaker. It is personally hurtful to me to he accused, albeit tangentially, of being in any way influenced by Stalin. The hon. Member for Bridgend should have known that Stalin died in 1953. I was a British Council postgraduate student at Moscow university in the time of Kruschev. The hon. Gentleman's history is deficient.

Madam Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Buckingham, who has clearly had a good education, should know very well that that is not a point of order for me and he should not waste the time of the House.

Mr. Griffiths: The hon. Member for Buckingham talked about genuine quality and his fears about standards. Over the past 14 years we have had an increase in illiteracy for the first time and at the beginning of the 1990s reading standards in primary schools declined for the first time since records began. If there is any fault, it must be in the past 14 years of Conservative Government. As for poorly equipped schools, parents are having to dip into their pockets to make up for Government underfunding.
I agree with the hon. Gentleman on one point. The Conservative party has been absolutely misguided in jettisoning the commitment in 1972 of the former Prime Minister, Baroness Thatcher, to provide places for all three and four-year-olds in nursery education within 10 years. The Home Secretary, when he was Secretary of State for Education, jettisoned that target and the money resolution in the Bill has prevented us from discussing nursery education.
In conclusion, the hon. Member for Westbury (Mr. Faber) talked about the abolition of grant-maintained schools. We do not intend to abolish the schools. We intend to abolish the undemocratic, unaccountable funding council and allow the schools to manage themselves in the same way as any good LEA schools and to look again at the funding formula so that all schools are decently treated.

Mr. Forth: We have just heard quite the quickest U-turn in policy that we have ever witnessed. Only yesterday, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State predicted that the Labour party would have to accept the concept of grant-maintained schools and within 24 hours it has done so. It is a remarkable tribute to the powers of persuasion of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I am grateful to the hon. Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) for that startling revelation.

Mr. Griffiths: Let me point out that I said that we would not be abolishing the schools, but the funding council, to allow the schools to be managed in the same way as any good local authority school, and to review the funding formula so that it is fair.

Mr. Forth: On reflection, that may be a double U-turn —the quickest one we have ever heard in the House.
Let there be no mistake; this is a far-reaching Bill. It is deliberately so and marks among other things the end of the long-standing local education authority monopoly of state school provision—something which all Conservative Members and an increasing number of parents will welcome.
The Bill is also a continuity of the policies that we have pursued throughout the 1980s and into this decade. It is a continuity of policy on special educational needs, on choice and on diversity of schools, about which my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Walden) spoke so eloquently a few moments ago.
Ever since we published our White Paper last year, all that we have heard throughout the stages of the Bill is dreary criticism from the producer interests driving Opposition Members into the usual litany of complaint and negativism about everything that we have done to improve standards of education—something to which we are dedicated and to which Opposition Members seem constantly to be blind in everything they say and do.
Opposition Members accuse us of centralisation, yet we wish to give real powers of decision in making priorities and spending money to parents, governors and teachers and not to the bureaucracy of the local education authorities which call the tune to which Opposition Members dance whenever they are asked or told. The Opposition's position is no more or less than special pleading of the worst possible kind and we reject it out of hand.
The Bill provides a framework for the growing grant-maintained school sector, a new deal for pupils with special educational needs and a new body to deal with the curriculum, assessment and testing—something which is of key importance and at the heart of excellence in education to which my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State are dedicated.

Mr. Alan Meale: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Would it be possible for the Minister to face this side of the House or the Chair as many Opposition Members cannot hear a word he is saying? He is talking only to his hon. Friends.
Madam Speaker: I always prefer to see the handsome profile of a Member rather than his bald patch.

Mr. Forth: I am grateful for your guidance and advice, Madam Speaker. Perhaps you could give me some tonsorial advice later after we have completed our considerations.
The Bill is of crucial importance to the future of education. It contains all the elements that I have described to the House. I commend it to the House because I believe that it will provide a high quality of education for all our children.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—

The House divided: Ayes 282, Noes 252.

Division No. 171
[9.59 pm


AYES


Adley, Robert
Bates, Michael


Ainsworth, Peter (East Surrey)
Batiste, Spencer


Aitken, Jonathan
Bellingham, Henry


Alison, Rt Hon Michael (Selby)
Bendall, Vivian


Amess, David
Beresford, Sir Paul


Ancram, Michael
Biffen, Rt Hon John


Arbuthnot, James
Blackburn, Dr John G.


Arnold, Jacques (Gravesham)
Body, Sir Richard


Aspinwall, Jack
Bonsor, Sir Nicholas


Atkinson, David (Bour'mouth E)
Booth, Hartley


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Boswell, Tim


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Valley)
Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Bowden, Andrew


Baldry, Tony
Bowis, John






Boyson, Rt Hon Sir Rhodes
Greenway, John (Ryedale)


Brandreth, Gyles
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Brazier, Julian
Grylls, Sir Michael


Bright, Graham
Gummer, Rt Hon John Selwyn


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Hague, William


Brown, M. (Brigg & Cl'thorpes)
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hampson, Dr Keith


Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)
Hannam, Sir John


Burns, Simon
Hargreaves, Andrew


Burt, Alistair
Harris, David


Butcher, John
Haselhurst, Alan


Butler, Peter
Hawkins, Nick


Butterfill, John
Hawksley, Warren


Carlisle, John (Luton North)
Hayes, Jerry


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Heald, Oliver


Carrington, Matthew
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Carttiss, Michael
Hendry, Charles


Cash, William
Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Higgins, Rt Hon Sir Terence L.


Chapman, Sydney
Hill, James (Southampton Test)


Clappison, James
Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas (G'tham)


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Horam, John


Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Ruclif)
Hordern, Rt Hon Sir Peter


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Howard, Rt Hon Michael


Coe, Sebastian
Howarth, Alan (Strat'rd-on-A)


Congdon, David
Hughes Robert G. (Harrow W)


Conway, Derek
Hunt, Rt Hon David (Wirral W)


Coombs, Anthony (Wyre For'st)
Hunter, Andrew


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Jack, Michael


Cope, Rt Hon Sir John
Jackson, Robert (Wantage)


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Bernard


Couchman, James
Jessel, Toby


Cran, James
Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)


Curry, David (Skipton & Ripon)
Jones, Robert B. (W Hertfdshr)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Kellett-Bowman, Dame Elaine


Day, Stephen
Key, Robert


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Kilfedder, Sir James


Devlin, Tim
Knapman, Roger


Dickens, Geoffrey
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Dorrell, Stephen
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Douglas-Hamilton, Lord James
Knight, Dame Jill (Bir'm E'st'n)


Dover, Den
Knox, David


Duncan, Alan
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Lait, Mrs Jacqui


Dunn, Bob
Lang, Rt Hon Ian


Durant, Sir Anthony
Leigh, Edward


Dykes, Hugh
Lidington, David


Eggar, Tim
Lightbown, David


Elletson, Harold
Lilley, Rt Hon Peter


Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Evans, David (Welwyn Hatfield)
Lord, Michael


Evans, Jonathan (Brecon)
Luff, Peter


Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)
Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas


Evans, Roger (Monmouth)
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Evennett, David
MacKay, Andrew


Faber, David
Maclean, David


Fabricant, Michael
McLoughlin, Patrick


Fairbairn, Sir Nicholas
McNair-Wilson, Sir Patrick


Field, Barry (Isle of Wight)
Madel, David


Fishburn, Dudley
Maitland, Lady Olga


Forman, Nigel
Malone, Gerald


Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)
Mans, Keith


Forth, Eric
Marlow, Tony


Fowler, Rt Hon Sir Norman
Marshall, John (Hendon S)


Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)
Martin, David (Portsmouth S)


Fox, Sir Marcus (Shipley)
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Freeman, Roger
Mayhew, Rt Hon Sir Patrick


French, Douglas
Mellor, Rt Hon David


Fry, Peter
Merchant, Piers


Gale, Roger
Milligan, Stephen


Gallie, Phil
Mills, Iain


Gardiner, Sir George
Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)


Garnier, Edward
Mitchell, Sir David (Hants NW)


Gillan, Cheryl
Monro, Sir Hector


Goodlad, Rt Hon Alastair
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles
Moss, Malcolm


Gorst, John
Needham, Richard


Grant, Sir Anthony (Cambs SW)
Nelson, Anthony


Greenway, Harry (Ealing N)
Neubert, Sir Michael





Newton, Rt Hon Tony
Sproat, Iain


Nicholls, Patrick
Squire, Robin (Hornchurch)


Nicholson, David (Taunton)
Steen, Anthony


Nicholson, Emma (Devon West)
Stephen, Michael


Norris, Steve
Stern, Michael


Onslow, Rt Hon Sir Cranley
Stewart, Allan


Ottaway, Richard
Streeter, Gary


Page, Richard
Sumberg, David


Paice, James
Sweeney, Walter


Patnick, Irvine
Sykes, John


Patten, Rt Hon John
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Pawsey, James
Taylor, John M. (Solihull)


Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth
Taylor, Sir Teddy (Southend, E)


Pickles, Eric
Thomason, Roy


Porter, Barry (Wirral S)
Thompson, Sir Donald (C'er V)


Porter, David (Waveney)
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Portillo, Rt Hon Michael
Thurnham, Peter


Powell, William (Corby)
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rathbone, Tim
Townsend, Cyril D. (Bexl'yh'th)


Redwood, John
Tracey, Richard


Renton, Rt Hon Tim
Tredinnick, David


Richards, Rod
Trend, Michael


Riddick, Graham
Trotter, Neville


Rifkind, Rt Hon. Malcolm
Twinn, Dr Ian


Robathan, Andrew
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Roberts, Rt Hon Sir Wyn
Viggers, Peter


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Waldegrave, Rt Hon William


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Walden, George


Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)
Walker, Bill (N Tayside)


Rowe, Andrew (Mid Kent)
Waller, Gary


Rumbold, Rt Hon Dame Angela
Ward, John


Sackville, Tom
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Sainsbury, Rt Hon Tim
Waterson, Nigel


Scott, Rt Hon Nicholas
Wells, Bowen


Shaw, David (Dover)
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Shaw, Sir Giles (Pudsey)
Whitney, Ray


Shephard, Rt Hon Gillian
Whittingdale, John


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shersby, Michael
Wilkinson, John


Sims, Roger
Willetts, David


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Wilshire, David


Smith, Sir Dudley (Warwick)
Wolfson, Mark


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Yeo, Tim


Soames, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Spencer, Sir Derek



Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Spink, Dr Robert
Mr. Timothy Wood and


Spring, Richard
Mr. Timothy Kirkhope.


NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Adams, Mrs Irene
Brown, Gordon (Dunfermline E)


Ainger, Nick
Burden, Richard


Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)
Byers, Stephen


Allen, Graham
Caborn, Richard


Alton, David
Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)


Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)
Campbell, Menzies (Fife NE)


Anderson, Ms Janet (Ros'dale)
Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)


Armstrong, Hilary
Campbell-Savours, D. N.


Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy
Cann, Jamie


Ashton, Joe
Carlile, Alexander (Montgomry)


Austin-Walker, John
Chisholm, Malcolm


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Clapham, Michael


Barnes, Harry
Clark, Dr David (South Shields)


Barron, Kevin
Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)


Battle, John
Clarke, Tom (Monklands W)


Bayley, Hugh
Clelland, David


Bell, Stuart
Clwyd, Mrs Ann


Benn, Rt Hon Tony
Coffey, Ann


Bennett, Andrew F.
Cohen, Harry


Benton, Joe
Connarty, Michael


Bermingham, Gerald
Corbett, Robin


Berry, Dr. Roger
Corbyn, Jeremy


Betts, Clive
Cousins, Jim


Blunkett, David
Cryer, Bob


Boateng, Paul
Cunliffe, Lawrence


Boyce, Jimmy
Cunningham, Jim (Covy SE)


Boyes, Roland
Dafis, Cynog


Bradley, Keith
Dalyell, Tam






Darling, Alistair
Hill, Keith (Streatham)


Davidson, Ian
Hinchliffe, David


Davies, Bryan (Oldham C'tral)
Hoey, Kate


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)
Hogg, Norman (Cumbernauld)


Davies, Ron (Caerphilly)
Home Robertson, John


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'dge H'l)
Hood, Jimmy


Denham, John
Hoon, Geoffrey


Dewar, Donald
Howarth, George (Knowsley N)


Dixon, Don
Howells, Dr. Kim (Pontypridd)


Dobson, Frank
Hoyle, Doug


Donohoe, Brian H.
Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)


Dowd, Jim
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Dunnachie, Jimmy
Hughes, Roy (Newport E)


Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth
Hutton, John


Eagle, Ms Angela
Illsley, Eric


Eastham, Ken
Ingram, Adam


Enright, Derek
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Etherington, Bill
Jackson, Helen (Shef'ld, H)


Evans, John (St Helens N)
Jamieson, David


Fatchett, Derek
Janner, Greville


Faulds, Andrew
Johnston, Sir Russell


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Jones, leuan Wyn (Ynys Môn)


Fisher, Mark
Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)


Flynn, Paul
Jones, Lynne (B'ham S O)


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)


Foster, Don (Bath)
Jowell, Tessa


Fraser, John
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Fyfe, Maria
Keen, Alan


Galbraith, Sam
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Gapes, Mike
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Garrett, John
Khabra, Piara S.


George, Bruce
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil (Islwyn)


Gerrard, Neil
Kirkwood, Archy


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Leighton, Ron


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Lewis, Terry


Godsiff, Roger
Litherland, Robert


Golding, Mrs Llin
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Gordon, Mildred
Llwyd, Elfyn


Graham, Thomas
Loyden, Eddie


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Lynne, Ms Liz


Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)
McAllion, John


Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)
McAvoy, Thomas


Gunnell, John
McCartney, Ian


Hain, Peter
Macdonald, Calum


Hall, Mike
McFall, John


Hanson, David
McKelvey, William


Harman, Ms Harriet
Mackinlay, Andrew


Harvey, Nick
Maclennan, Robert


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
McMaster, Gordon


Henderson, Doug
McWilliam, John


Heppell, John
Madden, Max





Mahon, Alice
Rooney, Terry


Mandelson, Peter
Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)


Marek, Dr John
Ruddock, Joan


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Sedgemore, Brian


Martlew, Eric
Sheerman, Barry


Maxton, John
Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert


Meacher, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Michael, Alun
Short, Clare


Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)
Simpson, Alan


Michie, Mrs Ray (Argyll Bute)
Skinner, Dennis


Milburn, Alan
Smith, Andrew (Oxford E)


Miller, Andrew
Smith, C. (Isl'ton S & F'sbury)


Moonie, Dr Lewis
Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)


Morgan, Rhodri
Snape, Peter


Morley, Elliot
Soley, Clive


Morris, Rt Hon A. (Wy'nshawe)
Spearing, Nigel


Morris, Estelle (B'ham Yardley)
Spellar, John


Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)
Squire, Rachel (Dunfermline W)


Mowlam, Marjorie
Steel, Rt Hon Sir David


Mudie, George
Steinberg, Gerry


Mullin, Chris
Stott, Roger


Murphy, Paul
Strang, Dr. Gavin


Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon
Straw, Jack


O'Brien, Michael (N W'kshire)
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


O'Brien, William (Normanton)
Taylor, Matthew (Truro)


O'Hara, Edward
Tipping, Paddy


Olner, William
Turner, Dennis


Parry, Robert
Tyler, Paul


Pendry, Tom
Vaz, Keith


Pickthall, Colin
Walker, Rt Hon Sir Harold


Pike, Peter L.
Wallace, James


Pope, Greg
Walley, Joan


Powell, Ray (Ogmore)
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lew'm E)
Wicks, Malcolm


Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)
Wigley, Dafydd


Prescott, John
Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Sw'n W)


Primarolo, Dawn
Williams, Alan W (Carmarthen)


Purchase, Ken
Wilson, Brian


Quin, Ms Joyce
Winnick, David


Randall, Stuart
Wise, Audrey


Raynsford, Nick
Worthington, Tony


Redmond, Martin
Wray, Jimmy


Reid, Dr John
Wright, Dr Tony


Robertson, George (Hamilton)
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Robinson, Geoffrey (Co'try NW)



Roche, Mrs. Barbara
Tellers for the Noes:


Rogers, Allan
Mr. Alan Meale and


Rooker, Jeff
Mr. Peter Kilfoyle.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill read the Third time, and passed.

Community Care

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Mr. Tim Yeo): I beg to move,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 7) (House of Commons Paper No. 504), which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.
Special Grant Report (No. 7) follows Special Grant Report (No. 6), approved by the House on 11 February. This completes the distribution of grants to local authorities for the financial year commencing on 1 April for expenditure on community care services as defined by section 46 of the National Health Service and Community Care Act 1990.
I am always happy to debate the subject of community care, whatever the hour, but I very much regret the circumstances of this debate, which has been necessitated by a costly and ill-advised legal action, the effect of which has been only to cause delay for local authorities in setting their budgets and to create an unnecessary atmosphere of uncertainty.
This report confirms our commitment to the provision of adequate—indeed, generous—funding for our community care reforms. Not only have we transferred from the Department of Social Security to the local authorities the full £399 million that would have been spent if the policy had remained unchanged; we have added £140 million. That represents 35 per cent. on top of the existing expenditure to allow local authorities to develop their services. Then there is another £26 million relating to the arrangements for the successor to the independent living fund. The whole sum—£565 million—is now to be ring-fenced so that the local authorities can spend it only on community care services. Of course, local authorities will have complete discretion to meet the needs of the local community as they see them and to reflect their priorities. They will be able, for instance, to take account of the importance of providing services for people with drug and alcohol problems.

Mr. John Bowis: It is good to hear of the global sum that my hon. Friend has announced and the release of the £20 million that was unfortunately held up by the legal processes. My hon. Friend will know that many of us have received letters from organisations, such as Turning Point and the Cranston projects, which deal with drug and alcohol problems. These letters express concern that, now that this money has been released, the allocation is perhaps weighted towards rural areas—as opposed to the inner cities where it is believed that many of the drug and alcohol problems are to be found. Can my hon. Friend reassure us that this is the fairest means of distribution?

Mr. Yeo: My hon. Friend is one of the most vigorous advocates for the people of Battersea and Wandsworth. There is no issue affecting his constituency which is not promoted most energetically in this House and, behind the scenes, with Ministers. I can give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks in that 50 per cent. of the special grant is being distributed in accordance with the existing pattern of service providers. Of the transfer element of the grant, 50 per cent. is distributed in accordance with the standard spending assessment; the other half reflects where the existing treatment and other residential centres

for elderly or disabled people are located. We have indeed taken into account the concern that my hon. Friend has expressed.
The original suggestion—that the money for residential treatment of drug and alcohol abusers should itself be the subject of a ring-fence—was made at a time when the concept of a ring-fence for the totality of community care funding was not even contemplated. Now that we have this total of £565 million guaranteed for expenditure on community care services, it would be quite wrong if, within the total, we were to impose a sub-ring fence for the £20 million—

Mr. David Blunkett: Why?

Mr. Yeo: If the hon. Gentleman will contain himself for a moment, I shall explain. For a three-fold reason it would be wrong to provide a sub-ring-fence. First, that would completely destroy one of the fundamental principles on which the whole community care policy is based—the principle of individual assessment. We are not willing to undermine that principle. Why should an elderly or disabled person be entitled to an individual assessment before a decision is made about the services that he or she should receive but an alcohol or drug abuser be denied the same privilege?

Mr. David Hinchliffe: On the question of funding for treatment for drug and alcohol problems, is not the central point that most people who attend units are self-referred and do not arrive through the assessment process? Is not the central concern about the prospects for projects, particularly in areas such as inner London, the fact that the appropriateness of community care provisions in relation to assessment and care management is being seriously questioned?

Mr. Yeo: If we were to allow the process of self-referral to continue without any assessment threshold at all, we should create two types of damage. First, people treated in these centres would not, after completion of treatment, be the responsibility of any local authority. There would be no statutory body with any continued interest in their welfare. [Interruption.] That would be the case after 1 April.
The second reason why it would be damaging to accept the existing arrangement whereby self-referral takes place is that the resourcing of services would continue to be based entirely on a pattern which was a historical accident and which did not reflect local needs. That is why we rest firmly on the principle that individual assessment should take place.
The third reason why it would be wrong to have a sub-ring fence is that to confine the expenditure to the purchase of residential services would perpetuate a bias in favour of residential services. Hon. Members on both sides of the House, especially Opposition Members, have expressed much concern about the matter and we debated it on 11 February.

Mr. Alun Michael: Does the Minister accept that his proposal is a lot of theory whereas practical steps are needed to ensure that facilities are available to those who need them? Not only individuals but communities will lose out. I have seen the benefit of facilities such as Dyfrig House to my constituents, and others throughout England and Wales. They require this sort of assistance to be there when people


need it. If the Minister follows theory, he is ignoring the reality being urged on him from all sides, including those who have experience of such problems.

Mr. Yeo: In the past five months, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and I have engaged in extensive discussions with the providers of residential treatment services and we have met a great many providers. In the light of those discussions, and reflecting our own concern about the importance of good services for drug and alcohol abusers, we have decided to do three things.
First, we have issued a circular to local authorities to make clear the high priority which the Government attach to seeing that appropriate services, in response to individually assessed needs, are provided for this important group of clients. Secondly, we have decided that it would be helpful if local authorities engaged in a direct debate with the providers of services about rapid assessment procedures and the way in which the process of identifying the responsible funding authority can be accelerated. Those discussions are already taking place with the help of the Local Government Drugs Forum.
Thirdly—and uniquely for this group of providers—we have decided to set up special monitoring arrangements so that we can have up-to-date quick information about the pattern of referrals by local authorities to drug and alcohol residential treatment centres during the first three months of the new policy.
Those are three responsible ways in which we have recognised the specific needs of the client group and the concerns of the providers of the treatment. I am confident that local authorities will share my view about the importance of the client group and that they will provide services in a responsible and effective way.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: What concerns people in the voluntary sector who are providing these necessary services at present is that local authority social services simply do not have the resources to provide fast-track assessments. There seem to be no additional funds for them to increase staff and facilities to create the fast-track system.

Mr. Yeo: Part of the extra £140 million to which I referred, which has been made available over and above the money transferred from the Department of Social Security, is designed precisely to pay for the extra staff who will be needed to enable local authorities to carry out the additional assessment work that they will need to undertake in relation to community care as a whole.

Mr. Roger Sims: My hon. Friend is right that the essence and philosophy behind the policy is not to perpetuate the present pattern of funding. Does he also accept that it is inevitable that as authorities take on completely new responsibilities in a completely new environment they will be more likely to pay attention to their local residents than those who come from outside the area? People with drug and alcohol problems who refer themselves for treatment tend to be from outside the local authority area and they are likely to be at the bottom of the list.
If my hon. Friend is not prepared to ring-fence the sums for drug and alcohol problems—I understand his argument—will he at least consider giving some guidance to authorities to emphasise that, at least for the first year,

they should continue the present pattern of funding so that the facilities currently available at least have some time to adjust to the new pattern of referral?

Mr. Yeo: I am aware of my hon. Friend's interest in the subject. He has spoken to me about it in the past. I cannot give him the assurance that he seeks because even what he suggests would to some extent run counter to the principle of tailoring services to meet individually assessed needs. To require or even issue guidance to local authorities to stick to an existing pattern of expenditure would run counter to our wish that individual needs should be the driving force behind the policy.
The Local Government Drugs Forum is currently promoting discussions between the local authorities a nd providers, in addition to dealing with the rapid assessment procedures. Its work also addresses how we identify which authority is responsible for the type of person who, as my hon. Friend suggested, might have moved around the country quite a lot as a result of their problems. It is clearly necessary for us to find a local authority which is responsible for that individual. The great advantage of that policy is that, once the authority has accepted responsibility for funding that individual's treatment, it has a continuing responsibility for that individual.
One of the weaknesses of the present policy was acknowledged even by the providers who expressed concern about our decision not to ring-fence the money. Many of the people who have been through the treatment drop out of the system. They lose touch with the people who have given them help, advice and treatment and fall back into their old habits. That happens not in every case but in a significant number of cases. It is less likely that it would happen if a local authority had a continuing relationship with an individual and took an interest in the arrangements for that person after treatment had been completed.
I conclude by saying that the court dismissed the application by an independent sector provider of an alcohol treatment centre for judicial review of the Government's decision not to ring-fence the money. The Government's position was entirely vindicated as a result of the court action. Against that background, I commend the report to the House.

Mr. David Hinchliffe: Tonight's debate is obviously a serious embarrassment to the Government. It is an embarrassing reminder that their implementation of the community care changes—which were originally due, let us remember, in April 1991—is not only delayed but discredited. Special Grant Report (No. 7) is before the House tonight because three weeks ago on I I February, when the original report on community care funding was before the House, the Government were being dragged through the courts on a judicial review of their about-turn on the clear commitment to ring-fence future funding of residential drug and alcohol projects. The Government were dragged through the courts because of their shabby disregard for the interests and concerns of those with drug and alcohol problems and for the future operation of many projects throughout the country which have a first-class track record in the care and rehabilitation of people facing such difficulties.
It is astonishing that the Government should try to hide their shame by claiming in local authority social services letter 93/5, issued on 22 February, that
the sums contained in Grant Report No. 7 are not attributable to services associated with any particular client group.
We are asked to accept that the removal of £20 million from Special Grant Report (No. 6), approved on 11 February, during the Government's time in court was nothing to do with any client group. We are asked to accept that the funding contained in the report before us refers to no one in particular. We are also asked to believe that it is purely coincidental that the £20 million in Special Grant Report (No. 7) is so very similar to the amount arrived at in the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and Alcohol Concern research document, which was used by the Department of Health's algebra group in its deliberations on the care funding formula. Updated to 1993 levels of income support, it was calculated that around £21.5 million would be needed to fund clients in residential care with drug and alcohol problems—what a coincidence.
The Government might wish to say that the debate has nothing to do with drug and alcohol projects, but everyone else, including some Conservative Back Benchers, knows that that is precisely what we are talking about. We are discussing a most disgraceful about-turn on a clear political commitment, given by the previous Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), in response to widespread public concern—echoed by Conservative Members—that a failure to ring-fence drug and alcohol projects would lead to their rapid demise. In the debate on Lords amendments, the right hon. and learned Member said so. I was present and some Conservative Members may also be able to recall that he said:
some local authorities might be tempted to give a pretty low priority to the work of outside agencies for unattractive groups, such as drug abusers.
He went on to announce that funding for such groups would receive specific protection:
To use the jargon, that money will be ring-fenced and local authorities will be able to spend it only on grants to such bodies."—[Official Report, 27 June 1990; Vol. 175, c. 404.]
When the Government deferred the implementation of the community care changes because of the poll tax shambles, the then Secretary of State made a clear commitment—in a statement to the House on 18 July 1990—to a specific grant for local authority funding of bodies that provide services for drug and alcohol abusers.
Nearly three years later we are asked to believe that the change in the Government's policy on the ring fencing of community care funding has somehow rendered the commitment on drugs and alcohol obsolete, but it has not. The concern expressed by the then Secretary of State at the time is, if anything, even more relevant now in view of the financial climate facing local authorities and voluntary organisations and the fact that drug and alcohol problems are probably even worse in 1993 than they were when the commitment was given.
The Government's assumption that an overall ring fence will protect the projects ignores the reality accepted by the previous Secretary of State that, in practice, unattractive groups are likely to lose out.
Can the Minister say in all honesty that if his local authority had to choose between placing an elderly lady in a nursing home and funding a drug addict or alcoholic, it would go for the latter? Given the tight budgetary conditions of the new financial year, that is just the sort of decision that authorities will have to make.
I suspect that, regardless of political control or of which party is in control, most local authorities are likely to prioritise the elderly. We already have evidence that some drug and alcohol projects will become financially unviable within days of the introduction of the April changes. The SCODA and Alcohol Concern survey show that 71 per cent. of the 94 agencies responding said that they knew that they would be losing income in April. More than half the respondents predicted closure within the first four months of implementation of the community care changes — a loss of nearly 1,000 bed spaces. Those are not scare tactics, as we already have clear evidence of closures.
The North West London Housing Association, which provides a service for problem drinkers in Ealing and Haringey, has forwarded me a letter, which was sent to the North-East Thames regional health authority on 22 February and sets out the position and the difficulties:
the position is that we are now five weeks away from the introduction of the new arrangements, there is an enormous shortfall in the resources needed to continue present services in Registered Care Homes,…there is no sensible or reliable system to deal with homeless problem drinkers and there are other unresolved dilemmas.
The DOH response to all this is to monitor the situation from next month and to continue to claim (as it did as recently as the week before last in the High Court) that removing ring-fencing was in our interests because it would allow local authorities to allocate even more resources than they would have been able to under ring-fencing.
Mr. Levine, the director, continues:
Against the background above my committee has had no option but to instruct me to close down the service by the end of June at the latest. Their duty as charity trustees requires them not to put the funds of the association at risk or operate when funds cannot be guaranteed.
The financial consequences to the public purse of the collapse of that project are fairly obvious. It will increase pressure on the police, the prison system, hospitals, the probation service, the child care system and social services. For a Government facing a public sector borrowing crisis, the implications for spending on the other services are horrendous.
More important are the human consequences for people such as the woman I met who had come from Essex and was in an alcohol recovery project house in Lambeth. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Brightside (Mr. Blunkett)—who is present for the debate—and I met her. She was working towards rehabilitation with her two children in care—she hoped to be back with them soon. What chance will there be of future referrals to that project for women outside London? What chance do the children of such women have of avoiding being permanently in care, as that woman's children are at present?
When the House debated the Special Grant Report (No. 6) on 11 February, I described the arrangements for distributing the funding after April as plain daft. This report is further evidence that the consequences of the formula used by the Government are, to say the least, bizarre. Turning Point, an organisation that is known and respected by hon. Members, has had the figures in the report analysed.
Recording the home local authority of residents during the financial year 1989–90, Turning Point calculated the


likely levels of money required by each authority to fund local residents who enter a project within that authority and those who attend a service in another local authority region. Just as the figures in report No. 6 show no correlation between need and funding, Turning Point's analysis demonstrated marked variations between the distribution in report No. 7 and knowledge of the funding needed.
I am pleased to see that hon. Members from both major parties who represent the London area are present. Once again, inner London has been particularly badly hit by the measure. Turning Point calculates that, of the 13 inner London boroughs, 10 will receive, on average, almost £120,000 less than the research suggested was needed to fund the treatment costs of people from each borough who receive care. Manchester has particular problems, with research suggesting a shortfall of about £500,000.

Mr. Tony Lloyd: My hon. Friend will be aware that the services in Manchester are already massively overstretched and, as the drug addiction problem is still increasing, the human cost is high. Is my hon. Friend aware that the Greater Manchester police have calculated that the cost to the local community, in terms of criminality due to drug addiction, is already enormous and rising? The fact that the Government have acted as cheapskates over funding for Manchester means that that cost, both in human terms and financial terms, will be borne by the community in the Manchester region.

Mr. Hinchliffe: I am familiar with the constituency of my hon. Friend and well aware of the difficult problems that he and his constituents face every day. I agree that, in Manchester, there will simply be a transfer of the funding requirement from where it should be—in the hands of local authorities so that they can support projects on drug and alcohol problems—into the police budget, which is already very stretched. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that the bizarre nature of the finding arrangements contained in this report mean that, while Manchester will lose £500,000, Avon—which has a large number of private residential and nursing care beds—will, according to Turning Point, receive about £250,000 more than it needs.
Especially worrying is the fact that, as well as illustrating the consequences of the bizarre distribution formula, the research has unearthed clear errors in the calculation by the Department of Social Security of the location of income support payments upon which 50 per cent. of the formula is based. For example, in June 1992, the DSS calculated that 10 people across six care groups were in receipt of enhanced income support in homes within the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham. It calculated that there were no claims for clients of residential drug and alcohol establishments.
But Turning Point operates a registered residential facility for drug users in the borough and it is known that income support payments were made to about 17 claimants in the project which was fully occupied during that month. Given that example and others, regardless of the distribution formula, the basis of the Government's calculation of funding is, to say the least, open to question.
I urge the Minister to recognise the inconsistency between the fine words in, for example, "The Health of the Nation", on drinking habits, mental disorder and suicide in particular, and the Government's position on this

question. I urge him to reconsider and to recognise the inconsistency between Richmond house media hype and the reality of Government policy.
A classic example has come my way. For some reason I always get two copies of each press release. I received one yesterday dated 1 March from the Department of Health. It is headed:
Government will tackle alcohol misuse head-on, says Dr. Mawhinney".
I am sorry that the Minister for Health has left the Chamber. The press release goes on to quote the Minister as saying:
We are not killjoys—a little bit of what you fancy, alcohol-wise, may do you good …But it does no harm to remind ourselves again of the scale of the problem.
Hon. Members on both sides of the House are well aware of the scale of the problem and well aware that it is likely to become much worse as a direct result of Government policy.
The Government talk, and the Minister referred to it tonight, of fast-track assessment. What we need is fast-track funding that is guaranteed and distributed in a way which reflects need. It should be recognised that with drug and alcohol projects the traditional means of referral do not tie in with the concept of assessment and care management.
What is needed is an understanding that drug and alcohol projects form a national network and require a funding system which recognises that fact. What is needed is a restoration of proper safeguards to protect the funding of those crucial projects. But, above all, what is needed is a recognition that tonight staring us in the face is a human tragedy which could and should be avoided.

Mr. Tim Rathbone: I must comment first on the speech that has just been made by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe). It is a travesty to say that the principle of community care is discredited in the way that the hon. Gentleman described. It is a principle espoused by virtually everybody. The hon. Gentleman said that it was entirely discredited by the announcement this evening. It is a pity that we should start off in that tone of voice.

Mr. Hinchliffe: Talk about tone of voice!

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman can talk about how I speak, but I am talking about what has been said.

Mr. Hinchliffe: The hon. Gentleman has completely misquoted me. I was not talking about the principles of community care. I believe in the principles of community care. I was referring to the manner in which the Government have implemented the changes that will take place with effect from 1 April.

Mr. Rathbone: The hon. Gentleman did use the term "discredited", but Hansard will prove whether I am right or wrong.
Rather than talking about the principle of community care, which is accepted as an advance on both sides of the House, we should concentrate on the possible difficulties in the announcement this evening.
My hon. Friend the Minister explained the way in which funds had been allocated. In that context, I noticed that my own county of East Sussex has been given a large allocation, which I presume directly reflects the number of


elderly people in residential care and in nursing homes in that county, and the large number of treatment centres in East Sussex run by organisations such as Turning Point.
Although we are delighted that we can identify now how allocations to local authorities have been made, it concerns me—this will come as no surprise to my hon. Friend the Minister—that the formula used bears too little relation to the referrals made in the past and likely to be made in the future.
Of specific concern—this point was touched on by the hon. Member for Wakefield and in interventions by my hon. Friends—is the disproportionately large number of homeless drug and alcohol misusers in inner urban areas. They are unlikely to have an identifiable home local authority, yet they are in greater need of residential care, perhaps, than any other category.
As my hon. Friend the Minister pointed out, guidance was issued for consultation, which clearly stated that admission to residential care should not be delayed whilst the responsible authority is identified. However, with the larger number of homeless people in inner urban areas, less than adequate funding—even through a more appropriate allocation mechanism—will inevitably mean that many with the most urgent need for residential care will be unable to obtain it, because funds for a replacement will not be readily available or, in the worst cases, will not be available at all.
In that instance, fast track cannot work. Fast track must depend on the availability of funds to operate. If it does not work, it will be impossible to meet the individual needs to which my hon. Friend the Minister referred.
All that underscores the error of the transfer formula, which does not account for the geographical spread of referrals to drug and alcohol services. Research revealed that one in five referrals to a service originate from the local authority in which the project is based, so 80 per cent. of referrals originate in other areas. That is crucial not only to the funding material but to the scheme's operation. That was one factor that persuaded the Government to ring-fence funding for that vulnerable client group in the first place.
My hon. Friend's attempt to improve the mechanism for distributing funds still stands a horrible risk of backfiring. I may be wrong in that assessment, and I am sure that Opposition Members hope that their assessment is wrong too—because we care mainly that people should receive the care and services that they need. In case we are right in our assessment, I put a plea to my hon. Friend the Minister.
Instead of monitoring for three months, the monitoring period should be extended to at least six months, and preferably to the end of this year—in other words, over a nine-month period. The truth is that homes will taking steps now to get people into their homes and to keep them there, and that will put out of kilter the statistics that will be available during the first three months of the new scheme's operation. Although I appreciate the direction that the Government want to pursue in their application of funding, and hope that they will be proved correct, we owe it to the people who need the services in question to monitor the scheme longer than is presently envisaged.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: I wish to draw the Minister's attention to the great concern that has been expressed—not only to me, I am sure—by the organisations that provide the care that we have been discussing. That applies not least to the Campaign for the Homeless and Rootless and the West London Mission, which has formed a group comprising 19 organisations that provide 22 centres—some residential and some providing day-care facilities—offering particular care and concern to those suffering from drug and alcohol abuse.
Those organisations make the specific point that, certainly in London, the removal of ring fencing for particularly vulnerable members of society is aggravated by certain factors. First, people move from one area of London to another, but at least 40 per cent. of the facilities are concentrated in three boroughs of the capital. The organisations also fear that there will be a desperate shortfall not only in basic funding but in the number of people prepared to accept responsibility for individual clients whose first residence is not in the borough to which they go to be housed or treated.
In my constituency, St. Mungo's Association has been running a registered residential home for single homeless men, all of whom have histories of varying degrees of grave mental problems—some exacerbated by drug and alcohol abuse. The care that is necessary for such people simply to make it possible for them to function in society again on the most basic, fundamental level is intensive, and takes up a great deal of time. The association's costs are currently covered by direct payments from the Department of Social Security, at a rate of £188·30 per head. It also has a grant of £30,000 from the local authority.
At present, of the 29 residents living in those houses, 10 could be deemed to be local; they are Camden residents. Between seven and eight come from the borough of Kensington and Chelsea, and the 11 other residents are referred to the registered residential home from the St. Mungo's central Endell street referral point.
The organisation is desperately worried about the possibility of an enormous shortfall, which it believes will amount to about £42,000. It is almost impossible for it to plan for any future provision. It fears that its own costs will inevitably increase if it has to pursue individual local authorities to provide for its residents; but its major concern is that relationships that have been built up—not only with its present residents, but with those for whom it has cared in the past and those for whom it wishes to care in the future—run a grave risk of being damaged. It feels that its residents will feel that the changes in the present system smack entirely of bureaucracy and officialdom, and that the necessary trust which is the basic step in rehabilitating such people will be destroyed at the first stroke.
I strongly urge the Minister to reconsider the present arrangements. I heartily endorse the remarks of the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone): I feel that the time scale that the Department is setting itself for monitoring is far too short. The idea of fast-track assessment is an absolute impossibility for most local authorities; they have not the staff, the funds or the time to be able to "fast-track" some of the most vulnerable members of society.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) spoke of the choice that many local authorities will have to make between an elderly, frail lady and someone suffering from the effects of drug and alcohol abuse. I entirely agree; but let me point out to the Minister that many frail, elderly ladies are also sufferers from drug and alcohol abuse. Surely it is in that regard that we should express what I believe should be our true concern: that "care in the community" should mean caring for everyone in the community.

Ms. Liz Lynne: I was saddened to hear of the Government's change of heart about the ring fencing of the drug and alcohol budget. I was a member of the drug and alcohol abuse committee in Rochdale when the news was first announced that the Government were to ring-fence that budget. Every member of the committee was delighted, because it meant that some of the services would be protected. I urge the Government to change their mind now.
Why have the Government plucked the figure of £20 million out of the air as the amount to be set aside for the judicial review? I have asked a number of people involved in drug and alcohol work how much money was needed for rehabilitation in England, but none of them came up with that figure. I should be grateful if the Minister could tell us where it came from.
I agree that three months for monitoring purposes is certainly not long enough. There should be a proper review of what will happen after 1 April to drug and alcohol services in the community.
The drug and alcohol service has always been the Cinderella service. It is often said that the mental health service is the Cinderella service, but the drug and alcohol service is even more so. We have heard that it will be believed that elderly people should benefit more from community care, whereas drug and alcohol misusers will be put at the end of the list.
There has been much talk recently about drugs and crime. Indeed, only yesterday we debated juvenile crime and juvenile offenders. We must accept the link between crime and drug and alcohol abuse. It is a great problem in Rochdale and the north-west. Greater Manchester was mentioned specifically in that connection.
Someone rang me today to tell me about the case of a 29-year-old man with three children. He has a heroin habit and steals to feed it. He has tried to get treatment at our local drug rehabilitation centre, but there is a waiting list. He is asking for treatment and help to get off the roller-coaster, but he cannot get it. After 1 April, it will be even more difficult. If the budget is not ring-fenced, more people will be sucked into crime.
Several surveys have been carried out on crime and its relationship with drug and alcohol abuse. The first to which I draw the House's attention was carried out in Nottingham. An audit in December 1990 found that alcohol was a factor in 88 per cent. of cases of criminal damage, 78 per cent. of assaults, 40 per cent. of instances of domestic abuse and 30 per cent. of child abuse cases. That is happening across the country, but we do not have enough statistics to know whether the true position is even worse.
Another report revealed:
young 'heavy drinkers' are more likely tban 'light drinkers' to report having committed minor violent offences, and more


likely to report that they have been the victim of crime…9 per cent. of adult males, 9 per cent. of young males and 4 per cent. of young females in the prison population are clinically diagnosed as dependent on alcohol, and perhaps as many as half drink more than the…recommended sensible limits.
In the past few days, young offenders have been much discussed in the House and by the media. A report by the probation service states that probation officers have cited addiction or compulsion as a key factor in 34 per cent. of crime committed by young offenders. Among the 17-year-olds surveyed, the influence of alcohol was a factor in 41 per cent. of cases and the influence of drugs in 30 per cent. of cases. Among the same age group, 6 per cent. of offences were committed to pay for the habit.
As I have already said, so many people are being sucked into crime to pay for and feed their habit. It is about time that the Government did something to stop that. I urge them to change their mind today about the ring fencing.
Talking about juvenile offending yesterday in the House, the Home Secretary said:
We are seeking to develop yet stronger policies to deal with the abuse of drugs. It is one of the causes of crime that society has the ability to control, as long as we back up the police, the voluntary agencies and every other agency to try to contain it."—[Official Report, 2 March 1993; Vol. 220, c. 149.] The Home Secretary said that yesterday. Today I ask the
Government to change their minds, ring-fence the drug and alcohol budget again, and help the people in our society who are misusers of drugs and alcohol to have a decent standard of living.

11 pm

Mr. John Bowis: I welcome the global figure that the Minister has announced will be provided for community care. It is an excellent figure, and we should set our discussion against that background; that is where we start.
Secondly, I believe that history may record that it was as a result of a question from me to the Minister at the time that the ring fence for drug and alcohol projects was originally announced, so I have some personal interest in that success, and in the services that we are discussing. In my constituency, there is the Davies centre, which is part of Turning Point, and other projects such as the Cranston project, to which I have already referred in an intervention.
I am joining in what has been rather a good debate. Perhaps the Opposition Front Bench spokesman was a little belligerent, but that was nicely balanced by the quieter tones of my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes (Mr. Rathbone). We all share a genuine desire to help and support people who have the problems resulting from addiction to drugs or alcohol to which everyone who has spoken has referred.
Much is being done in the health service. There are many initiatives in hospitals, detoxification units and so on. Representing the inner-London area of Battersea, my concern is that people should not take the view that the problem should be passed out to the shires—that we somehow export our problems to be looked after. We should remember that Battersea is also a halfway home for people who have been in detoxification units and are on their way back home.
Inner cities themselves create much of the problem—they create many drug, alcohol and mental health

problems—but people who have suffered in the inner cities do not necessarily want to live outside London and the other big cities. They want eventually to come home. The wonderful support that the Davies centre and other such places can give enables them to come back to their homes within the city.
That is what I, working alongside, value so much, and that is why I hope that the Minister will monitor most carefully the effects of his decision to ensure that the money reaches the people who need it, that it is filtered through the new wider ring-fenced system and that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Lewes so wisely said, the fears that some of us have are proved groundless and the optimism built into the new system is justified. Should that prove not to be the case, we shall then be able to put matters right.

Ms. Tessa Jowell: I hope that the Minister will listen to the overwhelming cross-party support for a rethink of the Government position on ring fencing. I shall briefly refer again to the important conclusions of the Turning Point survey which have informed the debate and to which my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) referred.
I should like to provide some specific evidence from the London borough of Southwark. The Government's distribution formula suggests that Southwark needs about £116,000 to support its services for drug and alcohol misusers. The Turning Point survey, calculated on the basis of where the misusers are, suggests a figure of £244,000. Southwark will get £128,000 less than the current service providers deem necessary for drug and alcohol misusers living in Southwark. Let us contrast that with Kent. The Government believe that Kent needs £718,000. Turning Point, which deals with real clients rather than attributed figures, says that Kent needs £230,000, producing a potential surplus of nearly £500,000.
Why is there such a difference? The Turning Point study accurately reflects the unique nature of this particular group of community care service users. In many cases we are talking about people who have been in and out of drug clinics all over the country for many years. Typically, they become homeless and are without family support because of their substance abuse. They are not a settled group. Their use of services is therefore different from that of other community care service users.
Specialist clinics report that only 4 per cent. of drug and alcohol misusers are referred by social services–50 per cent. of them are self-referred. Their links with home or any local authority are slim. They may move around the country because they are trying to avoid their own local drugs scene or because the area where they originated does not have the facilities to treat their needs.
Because Southwark has among the lowest number of permanent residents who are known to have drug or alcohol problems, it gets less money under the Government's system of distributing the community care grant. However, the reality is that people who are homeless and have drug and alcohol dependencies will continue to come to inner city boroughs like Southwark. They will not stay in small leafy towns just because the Minister's bureaucratic formula tells them to do so.
According to Turning Point's research, Suffolk will receive three times as much cash as it needs while 10 out of the 13 London boroughs will receive an average of £1·18 million less than the residents require for their care to be sustained.
It is particularly important that the total found by Turning Point to be needed properly to support alcohol and drug abuse facilities—£21 million—is close to the £20 million that the Government announced that they had set aside during the judicial review. The issue is not that far more money is needed, but for that money to be directed to where the people are and where the services need support.
Ministers are in a small minority in believing that their policy is right. It is opposed by every organisation representing informed opinion—not just the providers of services to people with drug and alcohol problems, but the Association of Directors of Social Services, the British Association of Social Workers, the Institute of Health Services Management and the National Care Homes Association.
I conclude with a simple question to the Minister which I hope he will answer when he replies to the debate. If he makes such play of the importance of stability and protection for the services of elderly people living in independent residential homes during the first year of community care reforms, why does not he accept that exactly the same need for stability and consistency applies to services for people who suffer from drug and alcohol misuse?

Mr. Alan Milburn: Like the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Bowis), I think that we have had a good and well-informed debate. I hope that the Minister will take note of the fact that every hon. Member who has spoken so far has expressed grave concerns about the lack of operation of the ring fence.
The irony is that this debate need never have taken place. It would not have been necessary to be in our places this evening if the pledge that was given in 1990 by the then Secretary of State for Health, the right hon. and learned Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke), had been honoured. He guaranteed that ring fencing would be provided for drug and alcohol residential centres, in response to cross-party support in the House, from those in another place and from expert organisations, some of which have been referred to by my hon. Friends and Conservative Members. That support and pressure still exists and the decision to withdraw the 1990 ring-fencing promise has been universally condemned. I hope that the Minister will note that 123 hon. Members from both sides of the House have signed the early-day motion standing in my name which seeks a reversal of the Government's policy. I know from my work as the chair of the all-party alcohol misuse group and from the first-hand concerns that have been passed to me by both practitioners and clients of the impact that the Government's policy will have.
My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) has already referred to the Standing Conference on Drug Abuse and Alcohol Concern survey of 91 residential units. The Minister will know that half are threatened with closure by July. Some are already issuing redundancy notices to staff so that they might comply with the legal position that confronts them. Interestingly,

hardly any of them believe that the Government's last-minute response to the furore caused by their broken promises will help to guarantee their future. A limp advice note from Ministers to local authorities together with a still undefined fast-track assessment procedure, whatever that means, is hardly an adequate replacement for guaranteed funding, which is what each centre needs.
The Minister will know that the imminence of closure is not a red herring or a false threat. It stems from the reliance of the centres on income support payments from their clients, payments that will disappear from 1 April, and from the special nature of their clients. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the 140 drug and alcohol residential centres provide a national network of specialist help, support and rehabilitation services and offer short-term treatment. He will know also that there is a high turnover of residents.
It was a recognition of the differences between alcohol and drug misusers and the groups that form the overwhelming majority of the recipients of community care—the elderly and the mentally ill, for example—that prompted the then Secretary of State for Health in 1990 to make the ring-fencing commitment in the first place. Unlike the elderly, alcohol and drug misusers do not enter residential care as a last resort or as a poor alternative to community-based services. They accept such care as a positive first step, or a short-term option, to allow them to regain control of their lives away from the environment of alcohol and drug misuse that has been the cause of their problems.
The decision to ring-fence drug and alcohol misuse services was made because even in 1990 it was clear that the competing priorities on the community care budget meant that the client groups which were more popular or acceptable, or which had a legal entitlement to service, would be prioritised and that is precisely the situation that we face now. The present Home Secretary described it in graphic language in June 1990 when he said that the elderly and disabled were popular and had a powerful lobby and he accepted that some local authorities were less inclined to give the correct priority to the mentally ill. He also accepted that drug and alcohol abuse were not always popular recipients of social services money. As ever, the right hon. and learned Gentleman was a master of understatement.
The £20 million given in DSS payments for the direct use of those centres will now be lost in the general community care pool. My hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield referred to the press release and notice that accompanied the instrument that we are debating. It is clear that that money is not being ring-fenced.
The Minister argued tonight, as he argued in the Adjournment debate on the subject last December, that the ring-fencing commitment would merely have perpetuated the existing pattern of services. He must know that that is not so. The ring-fencing commitment was not merely a case of trying to preserve the old order. It was a case of trying to smooth the transition to a new order. I think I see the Minister looking astonished at that remark. He should read the speeches of his right hon. and learned Friend and other hon. Friends, who made it clear that the purpose of the ring-fencing commitment was not designed to set in stone a commitment for all time, but to ensure sufficient breathing space for a proper allocation of resources and development of services to occur so that the principles of community care could be properly met.
All that has gone down the tubes and the Minister's decision has doomed dozens of centres, including those in my area, to closure. He has given them, and the local authorities involved, less than six months to introduce procedures that it was originally envisaged would take until 1996 to get right.
In the debate last December, we went into some of the issues and spoke of the incredible complexity of the referral arrangements to each centre. The centres know that the fast-track procedure about which the Minister spoke and which he lamentably failed to explain in detail will not work. The professionals and the clients know that it will not work. Why on earth will not the Minister recognise that it will not work?
By refusing to countenance ring-fencing, the Minister is not only arrogantly dismissing the advice of drug and alcohol centre professionals, but is dooming the 5,000 people who use their services to a life on the streets without treatment, without care and without any hope of rehabilitation back into a normal life in society—and that at a time when the problem of drug and alcohol misuse is not only growing but has finally been recognised by the Government.
The annual cost to society of alcohol misuse is estimated at £2·5 billion. A few months ago, when the White Paper "The Health of the Nation" was launched, we heard of the Government's determination to tackle alcohol problems. How can that be squared with a policy that will close 140 drug and alcohol rehabilitation centres? In a week in which we have heard so much noise from Ministers about bearing down hard on crime, it is more than a little ironic to find the Government adding to the crime problems of the nation, bearing in mind that the majority of hardened drug users finance their habit by illegal means. They do so by theft, drug dealing and prostitution. With people having nowhere else to go and no prospect of help because the centres have been closed, the result will be more crime, not less. Society will end up picking up the tab for the Government's obstinate refusal to see sense on this issue.
My hon. Friends have already alluded to some of the anomalies in the report and have dealt with the detail. I make a last-minute heartfelt plea to the Minister not only to monitor what is going on—from 1 April, he will be monitoring redundancies and the closure of vital drug and alcohol centres—but, more important, to reinstate the ring-fencing commitment. If he does not, not only the people who use the centres but society as a whole will face a bleak future.

Mr. Jeremy Corbyn: It is a pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn), who made an excellent speech. I only wish that someone of his character and calibre, and with his understanding of the issues and preparedness to protect the services and the people who use them, represented the Government at the Dispatch Box tonight.
I find the Minister's announcement extremely depressing. He seeks to hide behind the fact that the High Court found in his favour. I must tell him that the High Court has made many mistakes over many years. Besides, it is not really very important whether the High Court

found in his favour on the ring-fencing argument. That is no justification. We want ring fencing to protect the projects and to protect the victims of drug and alcohol misuse.
I represent a depressed, deprived inner-city area. Our unemployment rate is shooting up. It is now well over 20 per cent. On some estates, it is over 40 per cent. The number of people who are suffering serious problems of alcohol abuse is very great and is increasing. Moreover, the figures are often understated in surveys because many people who suffer from alcohol abuse seek to hide it by various means. I do not necessarily blame them for hiding it; I merely recognise that it happens. Likewise, the number of youngsters who are becoming involved in serious problems of drug abuse is increasing all the time.
I am glad to say that we live in a society in which there is universal condemnation of drug abuse. Unfortunately, there is little less concern about and research into the reasons why young people in particular become involved in drug abuse. We live in a dreadfully alcohol-related society, however. One has only to take any underground or bus journey in London or watch television to be fed a steady stream of advertisements encouraging one to drink. That advertising rubs off. Drinking is a form of escape and solace and it is also often the result of a great deal of peer-group pressure. I believe that the problems of unemployment, overcrowed and poor-quality housing, debt and depression lead people into drinking. We must recognise the many causes.
All that the Minister proposes is that, in effect, the overstretched and overworked projects that are doing their best to cope with the avalanche of requests for help should be cut and should lose money because they will be unable to compete in what has become the marketplace of social services demands in local authority decision making.
Many hon. Members have served on local authorities —in my case, I am glad to say, in slightly happier times. If I had thought that the 1970s were going to be the high point of local authority expenditure, I would have spent a bit more. Local councillors face an absolute nightmare in deciding between a whole variety of competing demands in every conceivable area. From my time at the London borough of Haringey in the 1970s and early 1980s I know that, even then, it was not a very popular move to go to a social services commmittee and ask for money for a drug or alcohol recovery project. The committee would say that it needed the money for pensioners' organisations, under-fives, people with disabilities, and so on—all perfectly sensible and worthy causes, which we wish to see supported. Anyone now going to a social services committee and saying that a certain amount of money was coming in would be confronted with a host of people trying to get their hands on funds for equally valuable and worthy causes. The purpose of the great campaign to have the community care budget ring fenced is to protect the principle of community care provision by local authorities. That is an added reason for having ring fencing of the budget for drug and alcohol recovery units.
I have visited a number of schemes in north London. One that comes to mind is the women's alcohol recovery project based at Drayton park in Highbury, which has a very dedicated staff and does an absolutely first-rate job. Most of the women are self-referred or have been brought in by friends. They are not necessarily local residents, or even identifiable as resident anywhere. Many are people of no fixed abode, having become homeless and friendless as


a result of the trauma of alcohol abuse and having been taken in by some good Samaritan. The people who provide such services face the future with a degree of horror. They know that the demand for their expertise and services is increasing steadily, but that their ability to meet it is reducing steadily. They recognise that this proposal does not help them at all—a point that they made very articulately in the Lobby this year.

Mrs. Audrey Wise: Does my hon. Friend know that his point about expertise is made also by the directors of social services? Leaving aside the other problems that my hon. Friend has has correctly identified, those people do not have the necessary expertise to deal with the difficulties created by alcoholism. This is especially true now that they have to cope with so many changes in care in the community. My hon. Friend may not know that when they expressed their feelings to the Select Committee on Health they were absolutely backed up by senior health service officials, who pointed out that failures in this area will result in our having more people in the care of the medical side of the service, at greatly increased cost.

Mr. Corbyn: My hon. Friend makes an extremely valuable point as a distinguished member of the Select Committee on Health. Under-funding of any type of social or primary care service results in enormous demands on the acute health services, which are put at risk of being unable to cope. If the Minister has the time or the inclination, or even the interest, he should spend some time visiting general hospitals in London. It would be helpful if he were to listen to the debate. Perhaps he has so little interest in the subject that he cannot be bothered to listen to what hon. Members are saying about their experiences. When his mind was elsewhere I was about to suggest that he should get to know something of what hospitals experience in having to deal with the victims of these problems because of the lack of facilities elsewhere.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise the force of our argument about the need for ring fencing for these services and full support for the very dedicated people who are doing so much good work in this area. Why should they have to cope with cuts and closures and with increasing numbers of drug and alcohol abusers on the streets, causing more problems and more deprivation for themselves and others?

Mr. Ian McCartney: This debate is marked by the fact that the nine Members from both sides who have participated, excluding my hon. Friend the Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe)—and I exclude him in a friendly fashion—have given eloquent testimony to the fact that what the Minister has announced tonight is wrong in principle, although Conservative Members may have said that some Labour Members put the view more passionately than they did.
The underlying trend of what has been said is that the markets do not involve successful fast-tracking. The resources are not following projects, although the Government gave a commitment to that. The Government gave away the promise made in 1990 by the former Secretary of State to ring-fence resources. That has given greater impetus to the feeling in the community that the Government, first, do not have a real commitment to the

principle of community care and, secondly, have a hidden agenda in terms of leaving local authorities holding the can for the serious problems which will arise because of underfunding in the care gap.
In the debate on Special Grant Report No. 6, I said that the Minister was a Shylock. He proved tonight that he is not only a Shylock but a Pinocchio because, whenever he raises the issue of community care, one believes less of what he says about the Government's intentions in that regard.
To attack organisations for taking a case to court fundamentally undermines the real reasons why they went to court. They went to court out of total desperation at failing to convince the Minister that the Government's commitment should have been maintained. That commitment has not been maintained because the surveys and practical experience of the organisations show that 71 per cent. of projects have begun to lose income in the first nine months of the new scheme. By December 1993, 70 per cent. of all projects will have disappeared from most regions in the United Kingdom.
In the House a week ago, the Secretary of State introduced the document, "Making London Better", which contains two basic principles. I quote:
The number and variety of community nursing services available have increased, for example, through walk-in and telephone advice, counselling, and support groups and help for those facing crisis and long term illness. In London some of these initiatives are already underway. The pace of change can be speeded up…Important elements make up the process of modernising primary health care in London …Devising accessible services for Londoners with special needs such as those who are mentally ill or who misuse drugs or other substances.
A week ago, the Government gave a commitment to new services in London. Tonight, we are seeing the withdrawal of those services. The background to the withdrawal of services is that the number of addicts registered in London is 10 times the national average. In 1990, the age-adjusted rate in Greater London for chronic liver disease and cirrhosis was 60 per cent. higher for males and 31 per cent. higher for females than the average for England and Wales as a whole. Cirrhosis is a key indicator of the level of alcohol problems in the community.
Despite the Government's evidence and the introduction of the White Paper last week, the Minister intends to follow through with Special Grant Report No. 7 and withdraw the resources. It is an act of criminal irresponsibility by a Minister who never listens or learns. As a consequence, the most vulnerable people in the community suffer as a result of his decisions.

Mr. David Harris: He is shaking.

Mr. McCartney: If the hon. Gentleman had any compassion, he would be not only shaking but apologising for this shabby report. The Minister should have further discussions about the ring fencing immediately. We need no back-chat from the hon. Member for St. Ives (Mr. Harris).
By December 1993, 69 projects and 1,521 beds will have been withdrawn and two thirds of the agencies will have given redundancy notices to skilled staff. It beggars belief that, within nine months of the projects coming under a new financial regime, skilled people working with drug and alcohol abusers in the community are being given redundancy notices. What a commitment to community care.
It does not stop there. In every region in Britain there will be closure after closure month after month from 1 April right through to 31 December. Projects throughout the country for men, for women, for men and women, for women and children, and for men, women and children will close. It is a league table of shame.
Last week the Government announced league tables for performance. How about introducing a league table for the Government's monitoring of the closure of alcohol abuse services? By the end of this year, 1,533 beds will be lost from projects in the United Kingdom despite the Government's much-vaunted claim that the introduction of community care would bring an improvement in facilities in the community.
Having listened to hon. Members on both sides of the House tonight, the Minister still has an opportunity to change his mind. If he does not want to listen to me and my honourable colleagues because of his party political bias and his commitment to Government policy, let him listen to his hon. Friends behind him. Let him listen to what they have said and bear in mind the areas from which they come. Let him listen to the problems that they have outlined. They did so because they know from their personal experience, from the organisations which have come to them and from the constituents who have submitted proposals to them, that the dogma does not work.
The practicalities are such that the Government's proposals will lead to the closure of projects, an increase in crime and a reduction in the ability of individuals in the community to self-refer to organisations in the community. That is the most damning effect of the proposal. By refusing to ring-fence the money, the Miniser will reduce the opportunity for self-referral. Fast-tracking interferes with that opportunity. The market will not recognise self-referrals. That will create winners and losers. The losers will always be the users of the two services. I beg the Minister to change his mind now.

Mr. Yeo: This has been a valuable debate. I have listened carefully to the views expressed by hon. Members on both sides of the House. I had hoped that I might hear rather more speeches vigorously in support of the Government's decision, but never mind—I know that there is such a thing as a silent majority on such matters.
The hon. Members who have spoken obviously attach a high priority to the needs of drug and alcohol abusers, and so do the Government, but hon. Members seem to assume for some reason that their views will not be shared by any of their local authority colleagues. No one has explained why that sudden divergence of opinion should arise, but that was the underlying assumption behind every request for ring fencing to be restored.
The Turning Point survey has been referred to by many hon. Members. It acknowledges that even in 1990, long before the local authorities assume responsibilities for community care in April this year, about half the applications for top-up funding for residential services for drug and alcohol abusers made to social service departments in the London boroughs and county areas

surveyed were successful. The local authorities already recognised the needs even before they took on the duties that they are about to have.
Let me explain to the hon. Member for Makerfield (Mr. McCartney) that the Special Grant Report (No. 7), which we shall approve in a few minutes, does not remove resources. It adds £20 million to the special transitional grant, which is ring fenced for the purpose of expenditure on community care services—some of which will be for drug and alcohol abusers'. The decision not to ring-fence the money for the residential treatment services does not mean that a single penny has been removed from the funds that the Government make available for drug and alcohol service providers.
The way in which the argument has been put this evening sometimes seemed a little over the top. Let us remind ourselves that since 1979 the real increase in expenditure on personal social services has been two thirds. In the past three years, the real increase in the personal social services standard spending assessment has been one fifth. If we take account of the special transitional grant of £565 million—I remind the House that that is not merely the money being transferred from social security, but an extra £140 million to help local authorities develop their services—and the standard spending assessment, next year local authorities will have at their disposal 15 per cent. more resources for social services expenditure than they have this year. It will be up to local authorities to decide how much of that massive sum they allocate to the treatment of drug and alcohol abusers.
The hon. Member for Stretford (Mr. Lloyd) intervened in the speech by the hon. Member for Wakefield (Mr. Hinchliffe) about the resourcing of Manchester.

Ms. Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Yeo: No, I have only four minutes to wind up.
This year, Manchester city council is spending £64 million on social services and it has a personal social services standard spending assessment of £76 million. Next year, the SSA will be £79 million and it will get a special transitional grant of £6 million, which is excluded from the rate-capping calculations. The only reason why there could be any shortfall in funding for social services in Manchester is because of the decisions of the Labour-controlled Manchester city council, which is exclusively responsible for denying the people of Manchester the services that they need.
A great deal has been made of the survey by Turning Point, which is scarcely a scientific study, as it is based on studies using 1989–90 prices and arbitrarily grossed them up by 68 per cent. over four years. I am not sure why costs should rise by that massive amount during that time, but I hope that when local authorities make referrals to drug and alcohol treatment centres they will at least ensure that they are getting value for money.
I recognise that the distribution decision is difficult. We went through detailed discussions with the local authority associations about how to distribute funds for community care. There is no obviously right answer. We are all concerned to try to achieve a smooth transition to the new policy, but 35 per cent. of the special transitional grant will be distributed on the basis of the present income support


expenditure pattern and the other 65 per cent. is based on SSAs, which take into account socio-economic factors and tend to favour the inner cities.
I believe that that was the best judgment that we could arrive at to achieve the smooth transfer that we want. I stress again that our community care policy, the generous funding that we provide, and the way in which the money is being distributed are not intended to protect the position of every provider of treatment, but to ensure that services are designed to meet the needs of the individual.
I must inform the hon. Member for Dulwich (Ms. Jowell) that we are giving the drug and alcohol service providers exactly the same protection that she says is being accorded to the providers of residential homes for the elderly. They are all being treated alike.
On monitoring, I recognise the concerns of my hon. Friends, but I am not sure how they reconcile with the fact that Opposition Members have told us that some of the establishments will go out of business in three months. If that is the case, our three-month period will be long enough, especially bearing in mind that client turnover in the centres is rapid-the average stay is only 19 weeks. Monitoring by the social services inspectorate will continue, even after the end of three months, to see how the implementation of community care is going.
In conclusion, no providers of residential or other treatment for drug and alcohol abusers have anything to fear from our policy if the services that they offer are of a kind that are recognised as effective and valuable for that client group.

Question put:

The House divided: Ayes 91, Noes 59.

Division No. 172]
[11.43 pm


AYES


Amess, David
Dykes, Hugh


Ancram, Michael
Elletson, Harold


Arbuthnot, James
Evans, Nigel (Ribble Valley)


Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)
Faber, David


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset North)
Fabricant, Michael


Bates, Michael
Forman, Nigel


Beresford, Sir Paul
Forth, Eric


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fox, Dr Liam (Woodspring)


Bottomley, Peter (Eltham)
Freeman, Roger


Bowis, John
Gallie, Phil


Brandreth, Gyles
Gillan, Cheryl


Bright, Graham
Goodson-Wickes, Dr Charles


Brooke, Rt Hon Peter
Griffiths, Peter (Portsmouth, N)


Browning, Mrs. Angela
Hague, William


Butcher, John
Harris, David


Carrington, Matthew
Hawksley, Warren


Carttiss, Michael
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Chapman, Sydney
Hendry, Charles


Clappison, James
Horam, John


Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey
Hunter, Andrew


Congdon, David
Jack, Michael


Coombs, Simon (Swindon)
Kilfedder, Sir James


Cran, James
Kirkhope, Timothy


Currie, Mrs Edwina (S D'by'ire)
Knight, Mrs Angela (Erewash)


Davis, David (Boothferry)
Knight, Greg (Derby N)


Day, Stephen
Kynoch, George (Kincardine)


Deva, Nirj Joseph
Lidington, David


Dover, Den
Lightbown, David


Duncan, Alan
Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)


Duncan-Smith, Iain
Luff, Peter





Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas
Sweeney, Walter


MacGregor, Rt Hon John
Sykes, John


Maitland, Lady Olga
Taylor, Ian (Esher)


Malone, Gerald
Thomason, Roy


Merchant, Piers
Thompson, Patrick (Norwich N)


Mitchell, Andrew (Gedling)
Thurnham, Peter


Neubert, Sir Michael
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Nicholls, Patrick
Trend, Michael


Patnick, Irvine
Twinn, Dr Ian


Pattie, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Waller, Gary


Porter, David (Waveney)
Wardle, Charles (Bexhill)


Rathbone, Tim
Wells, Bowen


Richards, Rod
Wheeler, Rt Hon Sir John


Robertson, Raymond (Ab'd'n S)
Whittingdale, John


Robinson, Mark (Somerton)
Widdecombe, Ann


Shaw, David (Dover)
WiHerts, David


Soames, Nicholas
Wood, Timothy


Spencer, Sir Derek
Yeo, Tim


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)



Spink, Dr Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Sproat, Iain
Mr. Andrew MacKay and


Steen, Anthony
Mr. Robert Hughes.


Stephen, Michael



NOES


Abbott, Ms Diane
Jackson, Glenda (H'stead)


Adams, Mrs Irene
Jackson, Helen (Shefld, H)


Barnes, Harry
Jones, Lynne (B 'ham S O)


Bayley, Hugh
Jowell, Tessa


Bermingham, Gerald
Kennedy, Charles (Ross, C&S)


Blunkett, David
Kennedy, Jane (Lpool Brdgn)


Boyce, Jimmy
Kilfoyle, Peter


Clapham, Michael
Lewis, Terry


Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Clelland, David
Lynne, Ms Liz


Coffey, Ann
McCartney, Ian


Connarty, Michael
McMaster, Gordon


Cryer, Bob
Mahon, Alice


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Meale, Alan


Davidson, Ian
Michie, Bill (Sheffield Heeley)


Dixon, Don
Milburn, Alan


Dowd, Jim
Pope, Greg


Etherington, Bill
Prescott, John


Foster, Rt Hon Derek
Primarolo, Dawn


Gerrard, Neil
Roche, Mrs. Barbara


Godman, Dr Norman A.
Simpson, Alan


Gordon, Mildred
Skinner, Dennis


Grant, Bernie (Tottenham)
Stott, Roger


Hall, Mike
Taylor, Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)


Harvey, Nick
Turner, Dennis


Heppell, John
Wilson, Brian


Hill, Keith (Streatham)
Wise, Audrey


Hinchliffe, David



Hood, Jimmy
Tellers for the Noes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley N)
Mr. Jeremy Corbyn and


Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)
Mr. Malcolm Chisholm.


Illsley, Eric

Question accordingly agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Special Grant Report (No. 7) (House of Commons Paper No. 504), which was laid before this House on 22nd February, be approved.

Mr. Corbyn: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. As fewer than 100 voted in favour of the report it can hardly be said to have the full-hearted consent of the House, so is it now legal?

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse): The answer to that is yes.

PETITION

Railway Stations

Mr. Patrick Nicholls: I have a petition containing more than 1,000 signatures, which is addressed,
To the Honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
The petition has been prepared by Mrs. J. Salter of Hele vilage, Torquay. Mrs. Salter is confined to a wheelchair and she draws to the attention of the House the fact that it is now British Rail policy to remove staff from its railway stations from 6 o'clock in the evening.
You will be aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, of the implications for disabled people, women travelling by themselves, the elderly and the young. The petition asks the House to urge the Secretary of State for Transport to make representations to British Rail to change that policy forthwith. The petition ends in the usual form:
And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will for ever pray.

To lie upon the Table.

George Beattie

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

Mr. Jimmy Hood: Tonight's Adjournment debate is about a 19-year-old Carluke boy who was convicted of murder in 1973. A simple lad—not very well educated—he was known in Carluke as a big softie. My speech will be confined to George Beattie's conviction, and I seek to prove to the House that it was a great miscarriage of justice. George Beattie did not and could not have murdered Margaret McGlouchlan. George Beattie is innocent.
A major problem with miscarriages of justice is getting the case reconsidered by the authorities. The only way to make Ministers or civil servants sit up and take notice is to get the message through to the public, through the newspapers or television. Miscarriages of justice—particularly those involving murder—are generally so complicated that newspapers and television present only a simplified version of the case, and then from one particular angle. In reality, such cases have many aspects and involve many intricate pieces of evidence.
George Beattie was convicted of murder in 1973. BBC Television broadcast two "Rough Justice" programmes about him in 1983 and 1985, and produced persuasive evidence that he was innocent of the crime for which he is in gaol today.
Those programmes concentrated solely on the evidence put before the court, and there is now evidence concerning police conduct in the case that points to George Beattie being a victim of a miscarriage of justice on several levels.
The aspect of Beattie's case to which I refer concerns personalities, professional reputation, police bureaucracy and—yes—politics. To understand fully what happened to Beattie, one must understand what was happening during the police investigation. The leading figure in the police work was Scotland's finest detective, William Muncie. Coincidentally, Muncie was born in Carluke, where the murder took place.
Success in the case against Beattie meant that Chief Superintendent Muncie would bring his career in Lanarkshire CID to a triumphant end, in the town of his birth. After the case, he went on to be Lanark assistant chief constable—then, even better, assistant chief constable of Strathclyde. Muncie's promotion meant that he left behind him an investigative disaster, with an innocent man gaoled and a murderer gone free.
Muncie had an impressive reputation. He had investigated 53 cases of murder, and the McGlouchlan case was to be his 54th. He had found the murderer every time—not one failure in any of his cases. It was a remarkable record to live up to.
Among Muncie's big murder case successes was the serial killer Peter Manuel; Gordon Hay—the Biggar murder: and James Keenan, the Lanark case. They were all solved using Muncie's favourite method, which was outlined in his memoirs. He first decided who was guilty, then took months finding the proof. That method failed him in the case of the murder at Carluke, when George Beattie was convicted.
To understand what happened, we must imagine being present at some of the investigations. Perhaps the key moment was 6 am on 11 July 1973. In the dawn light, Chief


Superintendent Muncie questioned George Beattie in the Carluke glen, where the body of a young woman, Margaret McGlouchlan, had been found four days earlier. The superintendent had already been up half the night dealing with this, his last case. Perhaps it is not surprising in the circumstances that he forgot all his own golden rules, and allowed his men to charge Beattie. No doubt in other circumstances he would have shown better judgment.
In fact, Mr. Muncie was trusting to luck: he had been very lucky during his career, but his luck ran out that morning. No doubt he thought that the evidence against Beattie would turn up, but it did not. Nothing seems to have gone right in the case from the start.
When Beattie was charged, Muncie was already four days into a botch-up of an investigation over which he had lost control. Uniformed police had trampled all over the scene of the crime before Muncie even got there; the photographer, acting without Muncie's direction, had missed a vital shot of the umbrella that the victim had used to defend herself. It would have told the court so much about what had happened—but there was no photographic evidence of where that umbrella had been found, and in what condition. One of the key points is whether the umbrella was up or down at the time; but, because Mr. Muncie was not on top form, we cannot say with any certainty which was the case.
Most important of all, Muncie's men had found a knife on the ground near the victim. They were all convinced that it was the murder weapon, but they were wrong. The chief superintendent himself soon realised that the rust on its blade ruled it out. What happened to his opinion shows the lack of organisation on the team: it did not reach all its members. That may not be surprising. The team of detectives came from half a dozen different stations, and examination of the police work reveals that liaison was poor.
Mr. Muncie, however, added to the problems himself, perhaps because of his robust personality. He let a Scottish newspaper fly him around the area in a helicopter; he said that it helped him to see the hidden paths around the glen. We may wonder why he did not know all those hidden paths, having spent his boyhood in the village when all the children played in the glen. The important point, however, is that the Daily Record picture taken from the helicopter was an investigative mistake of the first order. The picture that the newspaper published gave away one of the key police secrets—where the body had been found.
But there was worse to come. Two of Mr. Muncie's officers gave a guided tour of the scene of the crime to the man on whom Muncie eventually fixed as the murderer. That suspect—my constituent George Beattie—told officers John Adam and George Waddell that he had walked through the glen at the time when they believed that the murder had taken place. The officers decided to take him to the scene—through the police cordon, past Muncie's caravan headquarters, right to where the murder had happened. It started to rain.
Hon. Members may think that what happened next was highly irregular. There the men were, standing right by the scene of the murder—on the very spot where the attack on the victim had begun. When it began to rain, they did not walk the few yards to the police caravan headquarters for shelter; instead, Detective Constable Waddell ran past the caravan, nearly a mile to the car. The other officer—Adam

—was left alone with Beattie at the scene of the crime. Apparently, he took no notes of what he did or said to Beattie while they were there.
The police would claim that Beattie was not a suspect at the time; he only became that when he told them details about the scene of the crime. But Beattie was the only man whom the police found who had been in the glen at about the time when they thought that the victim had been killed, so he must have been some kind of suspect. Why take him to the scene of the crime, leave him alone with an officer and then claim that he could not have known details of the scene unless he had committed the murder?
The story told by the two police officers had changed by the time it got to court. Adam, the man who stayed with Beattie in the glen, later claimed that he, not Waddell, had gone to the car. Waddell did not corroborate the second version. What was the head of a police investigation doing allowing such behaviour? Muncie knew that detectives should never show a suspect the scene of a crime. Perhaps it is no coincidence that Adam and Waddell were immediately sent back to base in Motherwell and took no further part in the inquiry after that incident.
We might wonder why none of the other detectives heard of the "guided tour" of the scene of the crime. Of course, the officers involved were no longer on the case, because they had been sent back home, but no one told the other detectives on the investigation what had happened. Later, when another two detectives questioned Beattie, they were surprised to learn that he knew so much about the scene of the crime.
The handling of Beattie got worse. He was left waiting in a room where the girl's clothing was laid out. His interrogators were doubly surprised when he described clothing that had been locked in her suitcase. The most astonished was Sergeant Dougie Mortimer from Lanark. He knew little about the case, because he had been on holiday and had only just joined the inquiry. When Beat tie came out with the details about the victim's clothing, Mortimer persisted until the young lad was having something like an epileptic fit.
There followed an aspect of the case that the police completely failed to investigate. Beattie concocted a hare-brained story that men in top hats with mirrors had committed the crime. One can imagine that such a strange story would have mystified the police, but if they had carried out any sort of investigation, they would have found where the tale came from, and realised that Beat tie was saying the first thing that came into his head at the time.
The officer questioning Beattie, Detective Sergeant Mortimer, was not a pop fan. He did not know that, just before Beattie had gone out on the Friday, the night of the murder, men in top hats with mirrors—a pop group called Slade—had been on television. Beattie had seen them, and it had been one of the few visually memorable images that he had seen that evening. I have here a picture of the men in the top hats with mirrors—Slade, a top of the pops British pop group. Such a simple answer to an important question in the case against Beattie was an answer that any teenager could have given, but it completely foxed the officers on the case.
At 1.30 am, after about six hours of interrogation, Mortimer charged him with murder. Personalities now came into the case. Muncie liked to charge suspects himself, but a mere sergeant, who had been on the case for only a day, was stealing his thunder. At 5.30 am, having


had no sleep, the lad was brought before the chief superintendent at the scene of the crime. Muncie was making sure—in fact, the stage was set for Muncie's biggest mistake.
Muncie was proud of his investigative technique, and often talked about it. His motto was "always alert". He had a golden rule that all his men were supposed to follow: if a suspect was apparently admitting to facts which could incriminate him, they should be repeated to an officer who was not in any way connected with the inquiry. That is a good and fair way of conducting an investigation—it is a pity that Chief Superintendent Muncie totally forgot about it when it came to nailing the murder on George Beattie.
What is more Beattie was ill when Muncie saw him, yet Muncie denied him a doctor for a further 16 hours. By then, Beattie had been awake for about 20 hours. He had already been charged, but here he was, at the scene of the crime, tired and poorly and being made to postulate what must have happened when the murder took place, to policemen who avidly took down his every word as gospel—except, of course, those sections which did not fit their theory. Of course, Beattie, although charged, had no solicitor present. What a botch-up of an investigation.
It got worse. Muncie asked the accused to retell his tale. Beattie tried to repeat his "guided tour", but he made several mistakes, on which Muncie should have pounced.
Beattie said that the knife found in the glen was the murder weapon. We must remember that most of the detectives on the case were of that opinion, but their boss knew that it was not correct. The forensic department later proved him right—there was no blood on that knife, so it was not the murder weapon. Muncie said nothing about Beattie's mistake.
Muncie should have probed for special knowledge. He did not. One fact which the police knew but which was still secret was the fact that the murderer had not taken Margaret's expensive engagement ring. Beattie did not know that. Indeed, he had no special knowledge. He knew nothing of the one item of Margaret's that was never found—her charm bracelet.
What about the fact that Beattie had described details of the clothes in the victim's suitcase? Muncie should certainly have spotted the mistakes that Beattie made about the clothing. He himself noticed that the clothes had not been exposed during the murder—so even the murderer could not have known the details that Beattie had blurted out under interrogation. When Muncie asked where the body had lain, Beattie did not know, even though Muncie had marked the spot on the Daily Record photograph.
Any reasonable person would have known that there was something wrong with the arrest, yet here was a police team that lacked simple liaison procedures, and operated without proper briefings. The men were working almost 24 hours a day. In such circumstances, people do not think straight, and officers can become desperate to write cases off.
No one heard of those circumstances during the trial, of course. In court, it seemed that police procedures were perfect, working hours magnificent, and venerable chief superintendents infallible. But no one is infallible. Although Chief Superintendent Muncie was the famous

detective who had spotted the teeth marks that convicted Hay in the Biggar murder case, that sharpness was missing when he dealt with the forensic evidence in the Carluke case—because that evidence showed that Beattie was innocent.
Normally, Muncie would have spotted that, in the Carluke murder, the meal that the victim had eaten before leaving home was not in her stomach. That was vital evidence, because it meant that she must have died at about 11 pm, not 8 pm. But the police missed the significance—just one mistake among many.
There is a lurking doubt that the police had smelt that there was something wrong with their case. In Scotland solicitors have the right to question prosecution witnesses such as police before the trial—but Muncie was "too busy" to give a precognition. Perhaps that was because he could not afford to be questioned before the trial.
Picture him in his office as he prepared the case for trial. He knew that at least he had one "ace"—a blood spot on a tissue handkerchief found in Beattie's pocket. The blood grouping was not Beattie's and matched the victim's in two main—though common—groups. Unfortunately, that evidence had been handled in a nonchalant manner. There were no proper notes of its discovery, and no protective measures were taken—poor police work again.
Some of the other scientific evidence was worrying. There was blood under the victim's fingernails—she had scratched her attacker. Although the scratches would have shown on the murderer for days after the murder, Beattie had no scratches. And they could not match the blood under the victim's nails to Beattie.
A greater problem was the blood on the stones under the victim's head. It was clearly hers, but the sub-grouping in the blood did not match the blood found on Beattie's tissue handkerchief. How can Chief Superintendent Muncie have felt when that news came through? His "ace" was gone. There was only one solution. It would have to be claimed that that blood had no relevance to the guilt of the accused. The snag with that argument was that it was a lie—because the blood actually proved that Beattie's guilt did not exist.
So what could be done to lessen the damage that that evidence did to the police case? Quite simply, the evidence was suppressed. We can only guess who suppressed it—but the fact is that it never appeared in the documents presented either to the defence or to the court.
I can tell the House about that evidence now only because the information was let slip after the trial in a letter to Beattie's lawyer from the deputy Crown agent in the Crown Office:
Mr. Eynon did not examine stones found under the body of the deceased. Another forensic scientist did".
I understand that Mr. Eynon was the forensic scientist during the case. We now know, after the trial, that a separate secret forensic test was taken on the blood.
He goes on:
They were stained with human blood of group O MN. He also analysed a sample of the deceased's blood which was of group O MN.
There was no O MN in the sample on the tissue, and that proved conclusively that Beattie was innocent.
The report was withheld from the court and from the defence, and it must be asked why. It is new evidence; it was not given to the court, so it should be examined closely now. The letter also said:
I am not prepared to make a copy of his report available to you.


As George Beattie's Member of Parliament, I am asking for a copy of the report, because I want to see what is in it.
As for the problem of the wrong knife that Beattie had chosen as the murder weapon, Muncie glossed it over in court with an adroit answer. He said that the most important thing was blood. Let me refresh the Minister's memory; it was the same knife that Muncie had eliminated because there was no blood on it.
What was the chief superintendent thinking? Of course he knew that defence lawyers tend to stick by their written questions. Beattie's lawyer had no questions about the blood on the knife as none had been found. The court did not take Muncie up on the matter. It let it lie, so that the jury was left with the impression that there had been blood on the knife and that it was the murder weapon.
The kindest thing we can say about Chief Superintendent Muncie and this incident is that he must have momentarily forgotten that the knife he was describing to the jury was the very weapon that he had eliminated at the start of the case because it had no blood on it at all. It would not be nice to say that an officer with such a high reputation deliberately lied to make sure that his last case ended in a conviction, ensuring him a 100 per cent. success record before he left for one of the highest ranking police jobs in Scotland. However, we might excuse George Beattie in his cell in Saughton prison tonight for thinking that.
Those are not matters that Scottish Office Ministers would take seriously when reviewing Beattie's case, but they might well say that it was a matter for an internal inquiry into the police force concerned.
At the bottom of the case is the motive. The police totally failed to come up with any motive for George Beattie to commit the crime, but there is motive for the police to pursue Beattie. The whole case went wrong because of their botched investigation.
Beattie is not in Saughton prison because he committed a murder in Carluke in 1973. He is in gaol because, if the truth comes out, too many reputations will suffer in high places. That is the sad truth; it is something that the Scottish Office and its Ministers must stand up to and answer. They have hidden behind the many complications, twists and turns in the story of George Beattie. They must now realise that the guilty verdict was a miscarriage of justice.
As we sit in this place, proud of its history and its democratic processes, the conviction of George Beattie is a blight on us all. George Beattie is innocent, and the Minister must realise that everyone knows it. He seeks justice from Parliament and the Secretary of State for Scotland. In the name of justice and decency, I ask that George Beattie be given that justice.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Lord James Douglas-Hamilton): In the eight minutes which remain available to me I cannot cover all the points I should like to have raised if I had the full 15 minutes. However, I can tell the hon. Member for Clydesdale (Mr. Hood) that his remarks tonight will be closely examined and carefully studied. I appreciate that he has deeply held views about the conviction of George Beattie, and in responding I shall deal first with the conviction and then with the life sentence aspects.
George Beattie was convicted of murder on 4 October 1973 in the High Court in Glasgow. The victim was a 23-year-old woman from Carluke. She had been stabbed repeatedly on the body and robbed. Doubts have been raised subsequently about the safety of this conviction. I know that various submissions have been made to previous Secretaries of State about Mr. Beattie's case.
In particular, a former Member of Parliament, the late Dame Judith Hart, who was Mr. Beattie's constituency Member of Parliament at the time, wrote to the then Secretary of State in November 1983. She drew to his attention the findings of the BBC production team who had studied Mr. Beattie's case in preparing a programme in the "Rough Justice" television series, which had been shown earlier that month. Having examined these points carefully, the Secretary of State replied in April 1984 explaining that there were not sufficient grounds for him to intervene in the case.
Dame Judith wrote to the Secretary of State again in May 1984, enclosing a paper written by the BBC producer involved, seeking to challenge the Secretary of State's decision. It dealt with several forensic matters and, again, it was carefully examined. The forensic evidence in the case was re-examined by an independent expert with no previous involvement in the case—the director of the medico-legal department at Liege university, Belgium. His report confirmed the validity of the techniques that were used by the forensic scientists in the case and showed that the BBC material did not materially affect the consideration of the case.
The Secretary of State replied to Dame Judith in June 1985, explaining that there remained a lack of any grounds on which he could properly intervene in the case.
I know that there has been some renewed interest in the conviction recently, on the part of the hon. Gentleman and others. I realise that this may have been intensified by Mr. Beattie's recall to custody. Indeed, the hon. Gentleman met my right hon. and noble Friend the Minister of State, Scottish Office, to discuss the case on 4 November 1992. I can confirm that at present there is no petition before the Secretary of State on Mr. Beattie's behalf. However, if the hon. Gentleman, or anyone else, has new evidence or other considerations of substance in the case which have not previously been examined, he or she should submit a petition to the Secretary of State as soon as possible.
The hon. Gentleman has expressed concern that a forensic report on blood found at the scene of the murder has not been made available. The report was referred to in a letter of 25 June 1974 from the Solicitor-General of the time to the late Dame Judith Hart, who was Mr. Beattie's Member. The report classified the victim's blood and blood found on stones beneath her head as group O,MN, and accordingly did no more than suggest that the blood on the stones was that of the victim. The then Solicitor-General also confirmed to Dame Judith that no blood was found near the scene of the crime belonging to a group other than Beattie's or the victim's.
Indeed, both the blood on the stones and the blood on the tissues was found on testing to be similar to the victim's blood. The confusion arose because of a misconception that the victim's blood could not have been both group O,MN and group 0 rhesus D positive. In fact, it could be both. I stress that both tests were carried out on blood taken from the same sample of the victim's blood.
I have noted the hon. Gentleman's criticisms of the police conduct of the inquiry into the murder of Margaret McGlouchlan. As I have said, his words will be carefully considered and examined. If he has evidence in support of his allegations, and sources, he should arrange to submit them to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who will ensure that they are closely examined.
It may be helpful if I explain the review procedures for life sentence prisoners in Scotland. The mandatory life sentence exists to protect the public from those who have committed the extremely serious crime of murder. Our system of law provides safeguards and hurdles so that the very greatest care and consideration precedes the release of any life prisoner. The hon. Gentleman said on 19 October:
Prisons are there to contain people who threaten our community, but people should not be imprisoned unless they deserve it."-[Official Report, 19 October 1992; Vol. 212, c. 272.]
If, at any time, a life licensee's behaviour gives cause for concern, the Parole Board may recommend his recall to custody, whereupon my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may revoke a life licence. A person recalled to custody is informed of the reasons for his return to prison and has the right to make written representations.
In Mr. Beattie's case, there were several reviews. He had regular local and home leaves, which with the exception of one, when he returned to the hostel late, passed without incident. He was released on life licence in August 1986. He was supervised in the community first in Scotland and later—

Mr. Hood: rose—

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only two more minutes. I shall write to the hon. Gentleman. I have had only a brief—

Mr. Hood: I wish to be helpful to the Minister.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I have only two more minutes.

Mr. Hood: Will the Minister make available to me the report to which he has referred that deals with the blood that was found under the victim's head, which was found to be O,MN? Will he provide that report, provision of which has so far been refused?

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: I shall certainly make inquiries on that point in co-operation with the Lord Advocate, after which I shall write.
The key point about the blood is that the forensic report of 20 July 1973, which was a production at the trial, indicated that the blood stains on the paper tissues and the blood sample from the victim were group 0 rhesus D positive and that the blood sample from Mr. Beattie was group A rhesus D positive.
As I said, he was released on licence. He returned to Scotland in August 1990, when he took up residence with his mother and began working as a bus driver. The first incident related to his conviction for breach of the peace which gave rise to concern. He was alleged to have confronted and verbally abused the female driver of a car which was obstructing the bus he was driving. Following that, there was a breakdown in relations with his female supervising officer.
The final incident took place on 23 April 1992, when Mr. Beattie visited the office of his new male supervising officer. He was alleged to have kicked the officer on that occasion. He was subsequently convicted of breach of the peace and admonished. That incident was the culmination of what was considered to be a worrying pattern—

The motion having been made after Ten o'clock on Wednesday evening, and the debate having continued for half an hour, Mr. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at twenty-five minutes past Twelve o'clock.